Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

South Metropolitan Gas Bill [Lords],

Read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE (No. 2) BILL,

"to continue certain expiring laws," presented by Mr. Hore-Belisha; to be Read a Second time upon Tuesday, 7th November, and to be printed. [Bill 167.]

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

ALIENS (ENTRY PERMITS).

Mr. LEVY: 1.
asked the Minister of Labour if he has yet reached a decision on the application of the Bata Boot and Shoe Company for permits to bring foreign workpeople into this country to instruct British labour in Bata methods of production?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. R. S. Hudson): After an exhaustive investigation and full consideration of all the representations made to him, my right hon. Friend has decided to issue permits for 10 foreign instructors to train British subjects. The period of the permits will be limited to six months. The foreign instructors will be paid at the rates obtaining in good British establishments, and my right hon. Friend has received the written assurance of the company that the wages rates for the British workers will not be less than those set out in the National Conference Agreement of November, 1932.

Mr. HANNON: Does the hon. Gentleman's answer indicate that that is the
policy of His Majesty's Government in regard to all similar factories established in this country?

Mr. HUDSON: I do not think the general issue arises out of this question. We are treating each case on its merits.

Mr. LAWSON: Why should we have foreign instructors to teach our people to make boots?

Mr. HUDSON: We have gone into this matter very carefully with competent technical advisers, and we are satisfied that there are no British subjects available who can teach British workers. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Perhaps hon. Members will allow me to finish the sentence. I was about to say who can teach British workers these particular processes. If we had not been satisfied of that, we should not have given the permits.

Mr. LEVY: Is it not claimed that a good many hundreds of unemployed will be given employment when this new factory starts operations?

Mr. HUDSON: Yes, Sir, I think that is the case.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: Has the hon. Gentleman approached the representatives of the boot and shoe operatives or the employers in the industry to find out whether it is not possible to get workers in the industry here who are at least as competent in this respect as the foreigners referred to in the question?

Mr. HUDSON: We have been in touch with all persons who could, we thought, usefully give advice on this matter. I have myself received deputations both from the men's side and from the masters' side. We are satisfied that the issue of permits in this particular case is justified.

Mr. LAWSON: Is not the real object of establishing this boot factory to get lower-paid wage workers in this industry?

Mr. HUDSON: No, Sir.

TRANSITIONAL PAYMENTS.

Mr. MACLEAN: 2.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that a large number of households in the Glasgow area, members of which are on transitional benefit, will have their
incomes reduced by the loss of wages during the Glasgow fair holiday period; and whether instructions have been or will be issued to have the transitional payments increased in respect of the loss in wage income?

Mr. HUDSON: The matter is not one on which my right hon. Friend can issue instructions. The authority concerned has full power in making or reviewing determinations to take into consideration, among other circumstances, changes in household income due to holidays or any other cause.

Mr. MACLEAN: As the Ministry of Labour issue circulars upon matters not so important as this, could not they also issue a circular giving instructions on a question of this kind?

Mr. TOM SMITH: 9.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that, in connection with his application for transitional benefit, John Robert Simson, 64, Skinner (Street, Stockton, an ex-Navy man, was awarded 7s. 6d. per week only on the ground that he was living with his aunt, whose income consisted of 10s. widow's pension, 8s. 5d. allowance for son killed in the War, and 5s. 6d. for the rent of rooms let, plus the earnings of her grandson of 15 averaging 10s. 6d. per week; and whether he will make inquiries into the case with a view to ascertaining if the law is being properly administered?

Mr. HUDSON: I have no knowledge of the facts of this particular case. The amount of transitional payments to be paid in any case is determined by the local authority, whose decision is final. Any representations on the matter should be addressed to the authority by the applicant, and I have no reason to doubt that they will receive careful consideration.

Mr. SMITH: Will the hon. Member undertake to make inquiries, and, if the position is as stated, will he at least let the House and the country know what is the method of calculation?

Mr. HUDSON: No, Sir, I am afraid I cannot.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Since the Department act on the advice of any auditor
when they think a committee are breaking the law by giving too much, could not the hon. Gentleman, when a case of this kind is brought to his notice, intimate to the public assistance committee with the legal position is?

Mr. ANEURIN BEVAN: Is the hon. Gentleman serious in the statement that he will not cause inquiries to be made into the allocation in this case? Surely we are entitled to an answer?

HON. MEMBERS: Answer.

Mr. BEVAN: On a point of Order. A large number of supplementary questions have been put to the hon. Gentleman this afternoon, quite courteously, and he has ignored almost all of them. He is simply asked now to cause inquiries to be made into this case, and he refuses to make any reply at all. 1 submit that the hon. Gentleman is not treating the House courteously?

Mr. HUDSON: My right hon. Friend has often stated the position in regard to this matter. He has no control over the local authority in regard to specific instances, and he has made it a practice—

Mr. BEVAN: That is not true.

Mr. HUDSON: I am perfectly certain that if the person in question makes representations to the local authority, all the facts of the case will be given full consideration.

Mr. BEVAN: The question which has been asked is whether the hon. Gentleman will cause his inspectors, or the inspectors of the Ministry of Health, to make inquiries into this computation? In many instances, he has stated at that Box particular cases of excessive payments into which he has made investigation. Will he now investigate a case in which the amounts are too small?

HOLIDAY CAMPS, ARDGOIL.

Mr. MACLEAN: 3.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the Glasgow Council for Community Services for the Unemployed claim to have been authorised to use Employment Exchanges to enroll unemployed men for work at holiday camps at Ardgoil in September; whether the Employment Exchanges have been given permission to deduct the cost
of a camp holiday from unemployment benefit by instalments; and, if so, can he state the Circular which contains such instructions?

Mr. HUDSON: By arrangement with the Glasgow Council far Community Service in Unemployment, a poster drawing attention to a holiday camp at Ardgoil is exhibited in Employment Exchanges in the Glasgow area, and any man expressing a desire to attend is given a form of application. On completion this is forwarded on his behalf to the Glasgow Council by the Exchange. No deductions from the unemployment benefit of those proposing to attend the camp have been or will be made by the Exchanges. It is understood that the camp is run on purely recreational lines, the only work involved being the ordinary fatigue duties inseparable from camp life.

INSURANCE BILL.

Captain CROOKSHANK: 6.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he proposes, for the information of Members, to circulate during the Recess a draft of the forthcoming Unemployment Insurance Bill?

Mr. HUDSON: Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will await the statement on this matter which will be made by the Lord President of the Council at the end of Questions.

Captain CROOKSHANK: When the statement is made, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that this is legislation which probably affects more people than any other legislation introduced in this House, and that the Government have already, most unfortunately, gone back on their pledges with regard to it?

SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY.

Mr. PEARSON: 7.
asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the development of electrical welding in the shipbuilding industry, he will consider offering facilities for the training of unemployed caulkers, riveters, platers, etc.?

Mr. HUDSON: I understand that the training of ship welders is under discussion between the Shipbuilding Employers' Federation and the trade unions concerned. I am afraid I cannot hold out any hope at present of extending the
scope of our existing training centres to cover this particular process.

Mr. LOUIS SMITH: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of leaving this matter in the hands of the industry itself; and will he refuse to entertain any proposal for spending public money when the matter is being very well taken care of by the firms concerned?

Mr. HUDSON: That is the object of the answer which I have given.

Mr. PEARSON: 8.
asked the Minister of Labour the percentage of unemployment on the Tyne and on the Clyde at the end of June, 1932 and 1933, respectively?

Mr. HUDSON: The numbers of unemployed persons on the registers of employment exchanges on the Tyne, expressed as percentages of the estimated numbers of insured persons in the area, were 38.3 at 27th June, 1932, and 36.9 at 26th June, 1933. For the Clyde area the corresponding percentages were 32.6 and 31.0.

TRAINING CENTRE, CARSTAIRS.

Mr. MAXTON: 11.
asked the Minister of Labour if the causes of the strike among the trainees at the Ministry of Labour training centre at Carstairs have been investigated by his officers; and what steps are being taken to remedy the grievances of the men?

Mr. HUDSON: There has been no strike at this centre. Owing to the dismissal of a trainee who had been cautioned three times for unpunctuality and misbehaviour, a number of young men terminated their course in sympathy. The men's claims to benefit are being referred to the statutory authorities and the vacant places at the centre are being filled either from the men who are asking to be readmitted or from the waiting list.

Mr. MAXTON: Perhaps the hon. Member at some other time will explain to me the difference between a strike and a stoppage of work of the kind which he has described, but, apart from the grievance about the dismissal of one man, was there not general complaint about the conditions at this centre, particularly with regard to the food provided and the
method of maintaining discipline by systematically fining men out of their weekly payment of 3s.?

Mr. HUDSON: No, but I should be very glad indeed to discuss the details of this particular case with the hon. Member if he cares to come and see me.

Mr. MAXTON: But before the hon. Member is in a position to discuss the matter, will he first ascertain the facts of the case? I have them.

Mr. HUDSON: I have a very full report here It would take too long to read out, but, if the hon. Member will come to see me, I shall be very glad to discuss the matter with him.

Mr. MAXTON: Is that an ex parte report of the kind to which we are becoming accustomed?

Oral Answers to Questions — MINES HOURS CONVENTION.

Mr. LAWSON: 4.
asked the Minister of Labour what progress is being made towards the ratification of the Mines Hours Convention Bill; and whether he will place at the disposal of Members a full report of the discussions on this matter, including the material proceedings at the International Labour Office Conference?

Mr. HUDSON: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the Secretary for Mines to a question on 28th February last. The International Labour Office is now collecting information regarding the points raised at the meeting of representatives of certain Governments referred to in that answer and has asked Governments to supply this information by 15th September next. The International Labour Conference last month adopted a resolution on this subject. This resolution will be considered by the governing body at their next meeting in October. The resolution and a report of the short discussion which preceded its adoption will be found in Numbers 10 and 33 of the provisional record of the conference, copies of which are in the Library.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Have the Government made up their own minds on this matter?

Mr. HUDSON: That is a question which ought to be addressed to my hon. Friend the Secretary for Mines.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that the Prime Minister promised the Miners' Federation 15 months since that the Government would do everything possible to secure the ratification of this 40-hour week?

Mr. LAWSON: Is it not the case that the coalowners are making strong representations against the operation of this convention; and is it not that fact which is chiefly influencing the Government?

HON. MEMBERS: Answer.

Mr. LAWSON: I think, Sir, we are entitled to an answer.

Mr. HUDSON: Both questions ought to be addressed to my hon. Friend the Secretary for Mines.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

LINEN TRADE.

Mr. JOHN WALLACE: 10.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he can yet make any statement on the Scottish linen trade arising out of the considerations placed before him recently by a Scottish deputation?

Mr. HUDSON: The representations made to my right hon. Friend on the occasion referred to are receiving his careful consideration. Certain additional information has been asked for and my right hon. Friend is awaiting a statement from the Trade Association.

Mr. WALLACE: While the Minister made a good impression upon the representatives of the industry by his courteous and businesslike reception of the deputation, will my hon. Friend convey to the right hon. Gentleman the anxiety with which the Scottish linen trade await the decision of the Department on this subject?

Mr. HUDSON: My right hon. Friend is fully aware of it. We are awaiting further information.

HOUSING.

Captain ARCHIBALD RAMSAY: 72.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that there is a shortage of houses in the Gorebridge area of
Midlothian and that a number of persons who have been unable to obtain real houses are compelled to live in Army huts; whether he will urge the local authority to take steps to deal with the shortage; and whether, in approving any housing proposals submitted by the local authority, he will secure that when the new houses are being let a preference is given to those who are at present living in Army huts?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): Representations have recently been received regarding the unsatisfactory housing conditions under which certain families are living in the Gorebridge area, but except for the case of one family who are living partly in a single room and partly in a small hut nearby, and who lave now been offered the tenancy of a Council house at an early date, I am not aware of families being compelled to live in Army huts. The County Council have been urged by the Department of Health to submit proposals for the erection of houses to replace unfit houses which should be demolished or closed, and to deal with cases of overcrowding in their area. With regard to the last part of the question, I cannot give such an assurance as is suggested.

Captain RAMSAY: May I ask, in view of the fact that this family has received many assurances during the past 18 months that they will be moved into a fresh house at an early date and yet are kept in an Army hut all the time, if the hon. Gentleman can give me an indication of what he means on this occasion by "an early date"?

Mr. SKELTON: My information is that a house has been definitely offered to and accepted by the family. Tenancy will begin, I think, in September.

Captain RAMSAY: Thank you, Sir.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: 74.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that a petition calling for an inquiry under the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1930, has been received by the Department of Health for Scotland, Edinburgh, from the ratepayers of the parish of Terregles, Kirkcudbrightshire; whether he has yet arranged for the holding of the inquiry; and, if not, will he endeavour to arrange for the inquiry to be held at the earliest possible date?

Mr. SKELTON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The Department of Health are arranging for one of their housing Inspectors to visit Terregles in order that my right hon. Friend should be furnished with the information required before any decision is taken.

WATER SUPPLY, MIDLOTHIAN.

Captain RAMSAY: 73.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will call the attention of the county council of Midlothian to the need for the provision of an adequate water supply for the tenants of miners' houses in South Midlothian, many of whom have access only to one pipe line in the street and have to share one tap with several other tenants?

Mr. SKELTON: I have not received any complaints as to the lack of an adequate water supply for the tenants of miners' houses in South Midlothian. As my hon. and gallant Friend knows, the question of the modernisation of water supplies in certain villages presents difficult problems, but, if he will furnish me with the examples which he has in mind, I shall give careful consideration to them.

COURT OF SESSION (MACERS).

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: 76.
asked the Lord Advocate how many of the maters of the Court of Session are appointed by private individuals; and by what rights, statutory or otherwise, are these appointments made?

The SOLICITOR GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Mr. Normand): The answer to the first part of the question is one, and the right of appointment depends on a Crown Charter granted in 1690 and ratified by the Scottish Parliament in 1693.

Mr. WILLIAMS: May I ask who this individual is, and why he should retain this right, when the House of Commons does not even allow the King to have it?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Because the King has nothing to do with Scotland. That is the reason.

Oral Answers to Questions — TOTALISATORS.

Mr. GROVES: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish a report on the working of totalisators in foreign countries?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour): I understand that the Royal Commission on Lotteries and Betting have already made arrangements for the publication at an early date of a summary of the replies furnished by the Dominions, India, and certain foreign Governments of their law relating to gambling and that these replies contain information as to the operation of totalisators in those countries.

Oral Answers to Questions — DISTRAINT FOR TITHE (EMPLOYMENT OF POLICE).

Sir WILLIAM WAYLAND: 17.
asked the Home Secretary whether he will issue a circular to all chief constables recommending that police should not be employed in the collection of goods sold for tithe distraints unless a breach of the peace is threatened, and then only for the purpose of preventing such breaches?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The function of the police is limited to taking all possible steps to prevent disorder on these occasions, and if disorder occurs to taking proceedings against those who have been responsible for creating the disturbance. I have no reason to believe that the police exceed their proper functions and I do not think that a circular on the lines suggested by my hon. Friend is called for.

Sir W. WAYLAND: Has not my right hon. Friend received complaints with regard to the conduct of the police at the recent distress sale for tithe in the Eastern counties, whereby the police prevented the owner of the property from taking photographs of the proceedings?

Sir J. GILMOUR: No, I am not aware of any particular circumstances, but, if my hon. Friend will give me particulars of the circumstances, I will inquire into them.

Oral Answers to Questions — ALIENS.

Mr. DORAN: 19.
asked the Home Secretary the number of aliens who have been given permission to land in Great Britain since the 1st January and the periods for which the licences were granted?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The number of aliens who were given leave to land in the United Kingdom during the six months ended the 30th June, 1933, was 138,938. This figure, which is less than
the figures for the corresponding period of the two preceding years, is mainly composed of persons who came to this country for business or holiday visits of varying duration. It is riot possible to supply figures classifying the duration of visits.

Lieut.-Commander AGNEW: Can my right hon. Friend say if any large number of those are going to be allowed to stay in this country with a view to naturalisation as British subjects?

Sir J. GILMOUR: No. T have said that the great bulk of these people are here for business or holiday visits of varying duration.

Lieut.-Commander AGNEW: But on application are not these visits sometimes extended, so that they may stay the full five years and acquire British citizenship?

Mr. DORAN: 20.
asked the Home Secretary on what grounds persons residing in Palestine for a. period of at least one month are permitted to land in Great 'Britain without a licence; and how many persons have been permitted to land under those conditions?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Aliens corning from Palestine and seeking admission to the United Kingdom must, like any other aliens, and irrespective of the length of their residence in Palestine, obtain leave to land from the Immigration Officer at the port of arrival. The statistics of alien passengers are classified on the basis of nationality and do not show the country from which the alien travels.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 21.
asked the Home Secretary the date of arrival and departure of Dr. Schwarz, an agent of the German National-Socialist Government, who recently addressed the international consultative group for disarmament; and whether Dr. Schwarz was required to give a pledge that he would refrain from political activity while in this country?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Dr. Wolfgang Schwarz, to whom I presume the hon. Member refers, arrived at Dover on the 5th July and stated that he was a publicist and proposed to attend the National Peace Congress at Oxford. He left the country on the 13th July. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.

Oral Answers to Questions — GREYHOUND RACECOURSES.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 22.
asked the Home Secretary how many greyhound meetings were held in London on Saturday, 22nd July; how many of these meetings were in the afternoon and the approximate attendance; and what control, if any, is exercised by the local authorities.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I am informed by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that 26 greyhound meetings were held on Saturday, the 22nd July, in the Metropolitan police district, of which seven were held in the afternoon, and that the total attendance was in the afternoon approximately 7,000 and in the evening approximately 66,300. So far as I am aware, there is no control exercised by the local authorities over any of these meetings.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that still one more greyhound track will be opened in the Metropolitan area in the next few days, and does he not think it time, with 26 meetings on one day, that the Government speedily put into operation the recommendations of the Royal Commission?

Sir J. GILMOUR: As I have said, the Government will consider at an early date the report of the Royal Commission.

Mr. WILLIAMS: But during the time that they are considering the recommendations of the Royal Commission, will they also ascertain and take into consideration the profits that these various greyhound companies are making?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Every circumstance will be considered.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROAD ACCIDENTS (POLICE REPORTS).

Mr. TEMPLE MORRIS: 23.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that persons in poor financial circumstances who receive injuries in road accidents experience difficulty in paying the fee charged by some police forces for an abstract of the police report containing copies of particulars of their accident and the names and identities of interested parties and witnesses thereto; and if he will issue a circular to all police forces recommending a standard nominal charge for persons in such circumstances?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Chief officers of police have a discretion to waive or reduce the amount of this fee in all suitable cases, particularly where the full charge would involve hardship. I have no reason to suppose that the existing practice does not work satisfactorily, and in the circumstances there does not appear to be any occasion for the issue of a circular to police.

Mr. CAPORN: Will my right hon. Friend make inquiries to see if in fact the right to reduce the charge is acted upon?

Sir J. GILMOUR: As I have said, I have no reason to suppose that it is not, but, if the hon. Member will give me any information, I will consider it.

Mr. CAPORN: Has the right hon. Gentleman made inquiries?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Oh, yes.

Oral Answers to Questions — METROPOLITAN POLICE FORCE.

Mr. COCKS: 24.
asked the Home Secretary by what authority members of the Metropolitan Police Force on duty in the Houses of Parliament have been forbidden to receive the usual annual testimonial given to them by Members of Parliament at the close of the Summer Session?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The Regulations of the Metropolitan Police, like the Regulations of other police forces, forbid members of the force to accept any gratuity without the consent of the Commissioner of Police. Hitherto, the Commissioner has allowed members of the force on duty in the Houses of Parliament to receive the gratuities referred to by the hon. Member, but after consultation with myself he decided this year that this practice should be discontinued. Arrangements have accordingly been made that the sums which were formerly given to the individual officers should be paid into the Commissioners' central fund for police charities and amenities.

Mr. COCKS: Why should the privileges of Members of Parliament be interfered with in this way?

Sir J. GILMOUR: As I stated in this House in the general Debate on the Police Bill, it is essential that gratuities of all kinds to individual officers, which
lead to very grave difficulties, should be discontinued; and I think that if the House of Commons would realise that this money is being contributed in the main for the benefit of the whole force—

HON. MEMBERS: No.

Mr. THORNE: Is it not a fact that the gratuities are given for the valuable services and the courteous way in which the police deal with Members?

Mr. HANNON: is it not a fact that this custom has obtained in this House for a long period of time and that these contributions are made for services rendered in this House; and why should they be put into some common fund?

Mr. THORNE: Because you have a second Mussolini.

Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: Is it not a fact that it has been proved highly undesirable throughout the whole country that any form of gratuities should be given to the police, and is it not therefore time that this House should set an example in the matter?

Lieut.-Commander AGNEW: Will any portion of the sum subscribed be allocated to the Corps of Custodians?

Sir J. GILMOUR: That is another point.

Mr. A. BEVAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that we are now to have no further instructions from Lord Trenchard?

Mr. COCKS: 25.
asked the Home Secretary for what period was the present Chief Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police appointed; what is the retiring age of this rank; and what is the pension to which he will be entitled; and what is his present age?

Sir J. GILMOUR: It is not the practice to appoint the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis for a stated term, and no period was specified in the case of Lord Trenchard. Under the Police Pensions Act, 1921, the age of compulsory retirement of the Commissioner is 65, sub-to extension in the interests of efficiency for not more than five years. Any pension to which Lord Trenchard may be entitled would depend on a number of factors which will not be determined until
he retires. He was 60 years of age in February last.

Mr. COCKS: In the interests of the efficiency of the Force, will the right hon. Gentleman call for the retirement of this gentleman?

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Would it he possible for this gentleman to draw a pension in respect of his services in the Metropolitan Police Force and at the same time in respect of his services in the Air Force?

Sir J. GILMOUR: As I have said, the pension to which Lord Trenchard may be entitled will depend on a number of factors which will fall to be considered.

Mr. McENTEE: Are we to understand that Lord Trenchard can take as many; tips and pensions as he can get?

Mr. COVE: 28.
asked the Home Secretary the total number of superintendents and chief inspectors in the Metropolitan Police Force; and how many of these will reach the age of 50 and 47, respectively, in the next three years?

Sir J. GILMOUR: There are 32 superintendents and 36 chief inspectors in the force. Twenty-five superintendents are already 50 and 22 chief inspectors are already 47. Three superintendents and 10 chief inspectors will reach the ages of 50 and 47 respectively during the next three years.

Mr. COVE: Cannot the same rule be applied to Lord Trenchard that he has applied to these people?

Mr. COVE: 27.
asked the Home Secretary by what authority the order has been given to retire superintendents and chief inspectors of the Metropolitan Police Force art the ages of 50 and 47, respectively, seeing that according to the Police Pensions Act the retiring age of these officers is 60.

Sir J. GILMOUR: The provisions of the order referred to are not completely stated in the hon. Member's question. The position is that the cases of those superintendents and chief inspectors who have attained the ages of 50 and 47, respectively, who are in receipt of the maximum pay of their rank and who are entitled to pension at the maximum rate of two-thirds of pay, are being examined in order to decide whether, in the in-
terests of the general efficiency of the force, they should be required to retire under the powers given by Section 1 (2) of the Police Pensions Act, 1921.

Mr. McENTEE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any reason why these police officers are compelled to resign at 50 and Lord Trenchard is allowed to remain years longer than that?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: What about the judges of the High Court of 80 years of age

Mr. COVE: 28.
asked the Home Secretary whether in future it is proposed to appoint any inspector in the Metropolitan Police Force who has passed the age of 4.3 to the rank of chief inspector; how many of the present inspectors will have passed that age in the next three years; and how many of these under present arrangements will be deprived of the prospects of promotion?

Sir J. GILMOUR: No age limit has been prescribed for future promotions to the rank of chief inspector. The second and third parts of the question do not therefore arise.

Mr. DAVIES: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether all these changes are consequent on the passing of the Metropolitan Police Act, or are they irrespective of it?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The changes to which I think the hon. Member refers with regard to the inspectors are not due to the passing of that Act but to previous legislation.

Mr. COVE: Is this clearing the ground for getting a military police force in London?

Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: Do not all these supplementary questions show what the position of the Indian police will be when they are handed over to the Indian politicians?

Mr. BEVAN: 29.
asked the Home Secretary the total number of superintendents, chief inspectors, and inspectors now serving in the Metropolitan Police Force; and how many of these under the new regulations will have reached the retiring age or have passed the zone for promotion during the next three years?

Sir J. GILMOUR: There are 32 superintendents, 36 chief inspectors and 676
other inspectors now serving. The measures which are being taken under Section 1 (2) of the Police Pensions Act, 1921, during the period of reorganisation affect five superintendents and eight chief inspectors, and may affect six more superintendents and 16 more chief inspectors during the next three years. No maximum age for promotion has been laid down for any of these ranks.

Mr. COVE: Does not this all mean an added cost to the Exchequer and the local authorities?

Sir J. GILMOUR: No, Sir.

Mr. BEVAN: 30.
asked the Home Secretary the ages of the present assistant commissioners of the Metropolitan Police; the retiring age of their rank; the term of their respective appointments z what pensions they will be entitled to on retirement; and what previous police service they had before their present appointments?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The Deputy Commissioner is 57 and the other three assistant commissioners are 53, 52 and 49 respectively. The age of compulsory retirement applying to them is 65, and they have been appointed to serve until that age unless voluntarily they retire earlier. If they serve as assistant commissioners until the age of 65 one would receive a pension of £1,200 a year, two pensions of £1,000 a year, and one a pension of £800 a year. The Deputy Commissioner had 22 years and the assistant commissioners respectively 30, 14 and 12 years previous service in connection with the force before appointment to the posts which they now hold.

Mr. BEVAN: Does it not appear anomalous, to say the least of it, that most of the assistant commissioners should be over 50 years of age and that 50 should be regarded as a reasonable retiring age for everybody underneath

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is the Home Secretary satisfied that 50 years is an age at which men of this type should retire from active life when we have High Court judges—

Mr. SPEAKER: That supplementary question has relation to a question asked three or four minutes ago.

Mr. BEVAN: 31.
asked the Home Secretary whether it is the intention not, to promote in the future any officer who is over the age of 44 to the rank of superintendent in the Metropolitan Police Force; and whether he will state how many of the 38 chief inspectors will by this means be deprived of the chance of promotion?

Sir J. GILMOUR: No, Sir; there is no such intention.

Mr. THORNE: 37.
asked the Home Secretary whether he will state the form in which recruitment for the Police College and short-term service men will take place; whether it has yet commenced;; if not, when it is expected to; and whether he will state the terms on which engagements will be offered to such candidates?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I am not yet in a position to make any statement on the subject of recruitment to the College, but when arangements are complete they will be announced in the Press. As regards short-term service, recruitment of constables will start shortly and the terms of engagement will be similar to those for long-term service, except that promotion will only be attainable to the rank of sergeant and retirement with a gratuity after 10 years' service will be provided for. A Press announcement will be issued on this matter also.

Mr. THORNE: May I ask whether in the recruitment for this service the social position of the men in question will be inquired into?

Sir J. GILMOUR: All inquiries that are made as to recruitment of any person coming into the Police Force will apply to both classes.

Mr. BEVAN: Are they to have special uniforms—brown shirts?

Mr. DAVID ADAMS: 38.
asked the Home Secretary whether the appointment of the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police is a full time and full pay appointment; whether his attention has been drawn to the engagement of the present commissioner on inspection duties of the Royal Air Force; and whether such duties call for the special appointment of a deputy or assistant at New Scotland Yard during such times?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Lord Trenchard's appointment as Commissioner of Police is a full-time appointment. With regard to the second part of the question, the facts are that he was invited to visit one of the depots of the Royal Air Force on the 25th July and that he accepted the invitation. It has long been customary to invite distinguished officers to pay visits of that kind; it is an honour to them, and I cannot think that any exception can reasonably be taken to the spending of a few hours in that way. No special appointment at New Scotland Yard was required on the occasion referred to.

Oral Answers to Questions — REMAND HOME ACCOMMODATION (BECONTREE).

Mr. McENTEE: 32.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that there is now no remand home accommodation for children within the area of the Becontree Division of the County of Essex, and that the justices are anxious about the bad effects of the lack of suitable accommodation; and, as representations made by the justices to the Essex County Council on the matter have not succeeded, will he take steps to ensure that adequate accommodation for children and young persons is provided within the area?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The responsibility for providing remand home accommodation for the Becontree Division rests at present with the Essex Standing Joint Committee who, I understand, made an arrangement last year with the London County Council for the use of the remand home in London. Under the provisions of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, which comes into force on the 1st November next, the responsibility for providing remand home accommodation for Becontree and other parts of Essex will be transferred to the Essex County Council who will no doubt take into consideration any representations made to them by the Becontree Justices. I may add that a Circular was recently sent from the Home Office to county and county borough councils on the subject of the provision of remand home accommodation under the Act and it was suggested that better and more economical arrangements could be made by the use of central remand homes serving a number of adjoining areas. It would not be consistent
with this advice for me to propose the provision of separate accommodation for the Becontree Division.

Mr. McENTEE: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the nature of the division itself Everybody will agree that a central home is a good thing, but would not that depend on the district, whether it is highly populated or sparsely populated, and is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in this case the justices are very dissatisfied with the accommodation provided in the London County Council home?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I think there is reason for criticism of the existing home, but I understand that that is going to be remedied.

Oral Answers to Questions — GREEK STEAMER "NIKOE" (SEAMEN'S DETENTION).

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: 33.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that the crew of the Greek steamer "Nikoe," which was in Barry on the 7th July, were asked to accept reductions of wages which they state to be contrary to Greek law; that the chief alien officer at Cardiff intervened in the dispute and ordered six firemen to return on board the steamer and, on their refusal, ordered their arrest and secured their detention for four days in Cardiff prison; and whether he will cause an inquiry to be made into the circumstances of these arrests and the action of the chief immigration officer at Cardiff in the matter?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I have not had time to investigate this matter fully. I am informed that the immigration officer did not intervene in the wage dispute, but when it appeared that certain alien seamen who had been allowed to land temporarily on the usual condition that they would leave the country in the same ship had refused to comply with this condition, he felt it necessary to order their detention under the provisions of the Aliens Order pending arrangements for their repatriation on another ship. They were so repatriated on the s.s. "Cleanthis" on the 11th instant, but I am making further inquiry into the whole of the circumstances.

Mr. GRENFELL: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his promise to look into it, may I ask if he is aware
that their contracts terminated automatically with the changes in the wages offered to them, and that they were entitled to depart from their ship and be shipped back to Greece?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I am making further inquiries and will communicate with the hon. Gentleman.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

SENIOR COUNCIL SCHOOL, CONISBOROUGH.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 41.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education if he can state the material to be used in construction and the estimated cost in brick and wood of the plans approved by the West Riding (Yorks) education committee for an additional class-room to the central school at Conisborough?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Ramsbotham): My Noble Friend assumes that the hon. Member refers to the proposed enlargement of the Conisborough senior council school, of which public notice under Section 18 of the Education Act, 1921, was issued by the local education authority on 21st July, 1933: Details of this proposal have not yet been received by the Board.

Mr. WILLIAM: Before approving any wooden construction will all such questions as the cost of insuring as wooden construction be taken into consideration when comparing the cost of a brick and a wooden one?

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: I expect it will be.

CENTRAL SCHOOLS.

Colonel GRETTON: 42.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education if local education authorities have discretion in applying the principle of central schools in the areas under their control and are free to exercise discretion where local circumstances render the principle of central schools inadvisable, uneconomical, or otherwise inapplicable to any part of the area under their control?

M. RAMSBOTHAM: The answer is in the affirmative. The Board of Education have not imposed any rigid rule in
the matter. Each case is considered on its merits in the light of local circumstances.

Mr. A. BEVAN: Is it not a fact that this system of allowing exceptions to the general rules laid down by the Board of Education is causing educational anarchy all over the country?

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: No, that is not a fact.

Oral Answers to Questions — WEST HAM MENTAL HOSPITAL (APPOINTMENT).

Mr. GROVES: 44.
asked the Minister of Health if he will agree to the publication of the whole of the correspondence relating to the appointment of a consulting engineer for the Board of Control in connection with the installation of heating apparatus in the extensions to the West Ham Mental Hospital?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Hilton Young): The correspondence between the Board of Control and the West Ham Borough Council as to the appointment of a consulting engineer in connection with the extension of the West Ham Mental Hospital consists of two letters which refer to this matter incidentally, and give no support to the suggestion that the appointment was made under pressure from the Board of Control. I am sending the hon. Member copies of the letters, but I see no reason for their publication.

Mr. GROVES: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman where he finds anything about "pressure" in the question? I said nothing about pressure. I asked him about the invitation from the Board of Control. I did not say there was pressure. It was an invitation that was accepted.

Sir H. YOUNG: I had some reason to think the assurance might be useful to the hon. Member.

Mr. GROVES: Thank you.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

RENT RESTRICTIONS ACT.

Mr. T. SMITH: 45.
asked the Minister of Health whether any form of words will be issued by his Department for inser-
tion in all rent books issued consequent upon the new Rent Restriction Act setting out the tenants' rights and duties?

Sir H. YOUNG: I would refer the hon. Member to the regulations made under the Act on the 19th instant which have been laid before the House.

WESTMINSTER.

Mr. McENTEE: 47.
asked the Minister of Health whether he proposes to see a deputation from tenants residing in Pulford Street and Aylesford Street, Westminster; whether he is aware that citizens of Westminster subscribed by voluntary contributions £32,000 towards the purchase from the London County Council of land in Pulford Street for the erection of working-class dwellings, and that the project has now been handed over to the Westminster Housing Trust, whose prospectus promises interest at 4 per cent.; can he state how and by what means the land has been transferred to the Housing Trust; whether, in giving an additional plot of land, the Duke of Westminster imposed any terms; if so, can he state their nature; whether he is aware that the scheme provides for only 180 flats, with the result that there are no small flats available for people with slender means; and whether, in view of the origin of the scheme, he will have further inquiries made with a view to securing that adequate housing accommodation for the people in the area shall be the primary aim?

Sir H. YOUNG: This is not a matter in which I have any power to intervene, but I caused inquiries to be made into questions addressed to me by the Pulford Street Tenants Committee. These inquiries have not revealed any grounds for dissatisfaction with the scheme. I do not consider that there would be advantage in the reception of such a deputation as is suggested.

Mr. McENTEE: During those inquiries did the right hon. Gentleman learn whether the Duke of Westminster imposed any terms as a condition of the development? That is a part of the question, and I should like to have an answer.

Sir H. YOUNG: I could not answer that without more consideration. If the hon. Member wants a specific answer on
that point, I shall be happy to give it to him. The general purport of the reply is that this is not a matter in which I have power to intervene.

Mr. McENTEE: If the right hon. Gentleman could make further inquiries and give me that specific information, I should be very much obliged.

Sir H. YOUNG: I will give the hon. Member the specific information and I hope that there will be no need for further inquiries.

Mr. LAWSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman give very careful attention to this area, because in the development of business premises there seems a great tendency to crush out workers who are actually working in Westminster itself?

UNOCCUPIED PREMISES (RATES).

Mr. LECKIE: 48.
asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the increasing number of unoccupied business premises and private houses in London and some large cities and towns, and the consequent reduction in rates paid to the local authorities, he will appoint a committee to consider the advisability of empowering municipalities to rate those unoccupied premises at a reduced rate of say one quarter of the full rate?

Sir H. YOUNG: No, Sir. I do not think such an inquiry would serve a useful purpose in present circumstances.

Oral Answers to Questions — POOR LAW (WEST HAM).

Mr. GROVES: 46.
asked the Minister of Health the number of men and women, separately, in receipt of in and out-door public assistance in the county borough of West Ham for the years ended 1924, 1929 and 1931, respectively?

Sir H. YOUNG: In 1924 and 1929 the county borough of West Ham formed part of the West Ham Union and the desired figures are not available for these years. In the year ended 31st March, 1931, the average numbers of men and women in receipt of out-door relief in the county borough, excluding those in receipt of domiciliary medical relief only, were 2,140 and 3,431 respectively. Corresponding averages are not available as regards institutional relief, but on the 1st January, 1931, 960 men and 764 women (excluding rate-aided patients in mental
hospitals and casuals) were in receipt of such relief.

Mr. GROVES: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether his Department are quite satisfied with the way they are administering relief down there?

Sir H. YOUNG: I have no reason for expressing any dissatisfaction. If the hon. Member desires a more considered answer, perhaps he will put a question.

Mr. GROVES: No, I am satisfied with what you have said.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE.

5½ PER CENT. GOLD BONDS (CONVERSION).

Mr. D. GRENFELL: 52.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will state the means by which the new sterling bonds are to be made available; and whether it is proposed to pay any commission for the negotiation of the conversion of the gold bonds?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hore-Belisha): Full particulars regarding the method of exchange of the existing 5½ per cent. gold bonds into the new 2½ per cent. sterling bonds are contained in the prospectus which was advertised last Monday. No commission is payable on applications for exchange.

Mr. GRENFELL: 53.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will authorise the publication of a complete register of individuals and corporations who accept the conversion of the 5½ per cent. gold bonds into sterling bonds as proposed in the White Paper presented to Parliament on 19th July?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: No, Sir. By universal practice such a register would be confidential. In addition, as both issues are bearer issues, the information available would be of no value.

ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY.

Lieut.-Colonel APPLIN: 56.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury it he can now state whether it will be possible to accede to the joint request of the 18 associations representing theatrical and allied interests for the setting up of a departmental committee to examine the incidence of the Entertainments Duty and
its alleged prejudicial effect in its present form upon the welfare of dramatic art in this country?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: This matter is now under consideration by my right hon. Friend and I regret, therefore, that I am not in a position to make any statement regarding it at present.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRAQ GOVERNMENT (LOAN).

Sir H. CROFT: 55.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, before any authorisation is given to the Iraq Government for the flotation in London of an Iraq loan, guarantees will be obtained that the proceeds of such a loan, so far as it is to be used for the purchase of plant and machinery or any other goods obtainable in Great Britain, will be expended in this country?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer which I gave on the 3rd July to the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Hammerskley) of which I am sending him a copy

Mr. HANNON: Will my hon. Friend see that it will be part of the policy of the Government to secure when these loans are floated that as far as possible they shall be expended so as to give employment in this country?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I think, if my hon. Friend looks at the answer to which I have referred, he will find a satisfactory assurance.

Oral Answers to Questions — DERBYSHIRE MINERS ASSOCIATION (LEGAL CHARGES).

Mr. CONANT: 57.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been drawn by the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies to the recent payment by the Derbyshire Miners' Association of £995 in legal charges on behalf of one individual and whether he will institute an inquiry into the matter?

Mr. HUDSON: I have been asked to reply. I understand that information on this matter was recently laid before the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies and is under consideration by him.

Mr. CONANT: Is the hon. Member aware that the individual on whose behalf
this very large payment was made has been in no way connected with the coal trade for the past six years, and that the legal case on which the money was expended was in no way connected with union affairs; and does he not think some very urgent inquiry is necessary to prevent the dissipation of funds in this manner?

Mr. HUDSON: As I have said, the matter has been under the consideration of the Chief Registrar.

Captain CROOKSHANK: Is the hon. Member also aware that counsel was paid a fee of over £300 in this case, and is there any evidence to show that any of the miners who subscribed the money were consulted at all?

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Derbyshire Miners' Association have no control over the trade union terms of the legal profession?

Oral Answers to Questions — FISHING NETS (MESH).

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: 58.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he has yet come to any arrangement with the French and Belgian Governments on the question of the size of mesh to be used for fishing nets?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Major Elliot): No arrangement on this subject has been made with any foreign Government. The matter was, however, considered by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea at its annual meeting last May, and it was agreed that the question of minimum size limits for fish and regulation of the mesh of fishing nets should be specially discussed at next year's meeting of the council. I anticipate that, as a result of this discussion, a considered report with recommendations on the subject will be made to the Governments of the 14 countries, including France and Belgium, represented on the council.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Are we to understand that this is to last for a year, and will my right hon. Friend in the meantime issue strict orders to ensure that these foreign fishing boats are not landing undersized fish?

Major ELLIOT: Oh, certainly, the law as to size will be strictly enforced.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Yes, but will the right hon. Gentleman be a little more energetic in this matter?

Major ELLIOT: I do not think I can be more energetic in saying that the limits as to size will be enforced.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

OATS.

Captain RAMSAY: 59.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will state what progress has been made in the negotiations which have been undertaken with a view to securing a reduction in the importation of Dominion oats?

Major ELLIOT: The discussions to which I referred during my speech on 11th July on the Ministry's Estimates are continuing. I am hopeful that a satisfactory arrangement will be arrived at and that either I or my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will be able to make a statement at an early date.

Captain RAMSAY: May I ask whether the negotiations tend to prove that Dominion and home growers are able fully to supply this market, and, if that is the fact, will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to safeguard that market?

Major ELLIOT: I do not think that exactly arises out of the question.

BARLEY.

Captain HEILGERS: 62.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether the brewers have undertaken to use any definite quantity of English barley in the brewing of beer; and, if not, whether negotiations are still proceeding with a view to arriving at an agreed figure?

Major ELLIOT: As regards the first part of the question, I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the terms of the letter from the chairman of the Brewers' Society, which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer read in the course of his Budget Speech, and, as regards the second part, to the reply which my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury gave to the right hon. Member for South Molten (Mr. Lambert) on 20th June, of which I am sending him a copy.

BEET-SUGAR SUBSIDY.

Mr. THOMAS GOOK: (by Private Notice)
asked the Minister of Agriculture and
Fisheries whether, in view of the desirability of giving growers of sugar beet adequate notice of the intentions of the Government regarding the future of the beet-sugar industry after the expiry of the Beet-Sugar Subsidy Act, 1925, he is now in a, position to make a statement on the matter?

Major ELLIOT: The Government have decided, as a temporary measure, to introduce legislation next Session providing for a subsidy from the Exchequer on sugar and molasses manufactured from home-grown beet between 30th September, 1934, when the present Subsidy Act expires, and 1st October, 1935. In regard to sugar, the subsidy will be at the present rate of 6s. 6d. per cwt. of sugar; in regard to molasses, no subsidy will be payable so long as the world price of raw sugar exceeds 6s. per cwt., but subsidy at a rate equivalent to l½d. per cwt. of sugar will be payable for each Id. by which the price of sugar is less than 6s. per cwt., until the present maximum subsidy on molasses, equivalent to 9d. per cwt. of sugar, is reached. This decision is based on the understanding that the refining and beet-sugar manufacturing interests will co-operate in submitting as soon as possible a marketing scheme under the Agricultural Marketing Acts, and that they will be prepared to co-operate in due course with the growers of sugar-beet in the promotion of a development scheme under which the operations of sugar manufacture, refining and processing may be rationalised in the interests of greater productive efficiency. Meanwhile it is the intention of the Government to take such steps as may be necessary and practicable to support existing producers in their efforts to improve their industry in the public interest. The House will recollect that the Chancellor, in his Budget Speech of 1932, announced the intention of the Government to hold an inquiry into the sugar industry as a whole. A costing investigation has already been undertaken on behalf of the Government, and further expert investigation will be necessary. The Government propose, as soon as possible, to appoint an impartial committee to make recommendations of a long-term character in harmony with the policy expressed in the Agricultural Marketing Acts.

Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: Will the Report of the Committee which is contemplated be available before the House is asked to pass legislation continuing or increasing the subsidy?

Major ELLIOT: It will be available before the House is asked to come to any permanent decision, but not, I think, before the House is asked to pass the temporary arrangement which I indicated in the earlier part of my statement.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman give us some idea as to whether, under the new arrangement, the total annual cost of the subsidy to the State will be less than the cost to the State at the moment?

Major ELLIOT: It will be less if the price of sugar reaches anything above 5s. 6d., but not if the price of sugar is below 5s. 6d.

Sir H. CROFT: Can we take it that there is nothing in my right hon. and gallant Friend's answer which will preclude the Chancellor of the Exchequer from changing the system from a subsidy, which is thought by so many to be wasteful, to a tariff?

Major ELLIOT: No, Sir; but it is desirable, as my hon. and gallant Friend knows, to indicate the terms upon which the next autumn campaign should be conducted.

Sir H. SAMUEL: Why is it that, as the Chancellor's promise of an inquiry was made in April, 1932, an inquiry could not have been held, and a report presented, before any further steps were asked for from Parliament?

Major ELLIOT: The inquiry has been going on practically ever since. As my right hon. Friend knows, it is a very complicated business, and it is very desirable that we should have these matters fully examined; and we are also desirous of meeting my right hon. Friend's desire for a published report. It is on this account that we are asking Parliament to take temporary steps, as against rushing through permanent measures of which my right hon. Friend would not approve.

Mr. R. W. SMITH: If it is admitted that it is necessary for sugar-beet growers to know the position with re-
gard to their crop for the future, will the right hon. Gentleman also take steps to ensure that oat growers may know what the Government's intentions are with regard to oats?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

TRADE NEGOTIATIONS.

Sir H. CROFT: 63.
asked the President of the Board of Trade, whether he will give an undertaking not to complete any negotiations for further trade agreements during the Parliamentary Recess, or to commit this country definitely in the matter of future trade agreements, until the House of Commons has had an opportunity of discussing any such agreements?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): The only negotiations likely to be completed during the Recess are those now proceeding with Argentina, Finland and Russia. Article 3 of the Convention with Argentina, which was signed on 1st May last, provides that a supplementary agreement relating to import duties and similar charges, and to quantitative restrictions, shall be concluded as soon as possible, and that if it is not concluded by 1st August, either contracting party may terminate the Convention at any time thereafter, at one month's notice. In the case of the Argentine negotiations, my right hon. Friend cannot, therefore, give the undertaking desired. As regards the negotiations with Finland, my right hon. Friend hopes to be able to make a statement tomorrow, and as regards those with Russia, I would refer to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council on 20th July.

Sir H. CROFT: May I ask whether the House can understand that there will be no alteration of the duties agreed to, under the various orders that have been passed by this House, without further consideration and that there will be no reduction of duties while the House is not sitting?

Dr. BURGIN: No, Sir, I can give no assurance of that kind. What I have said in my answer is this: Argentina, negotiations will go forward, and it is hoped that they will be concluded at an early date; Finland, an announcement to-morrow; Russia has already been
dealt with by questions and answers that have been given. There is an assurance that before ratification an opportunity for the discussion of the treaty will be given to this House.

Mr. THORNE: Between now and tomorrow, will the text of the agreement with Finland be in the hands of Members of the House?

Dr. BURGIN: I cannot say that. I should think that that is extremely unlikely. The President of the Board of Trade will make a statement as to the progress of the negotiations, and he will make that statement to-morrow. It is unlikely that the text will be in the hands of Members between now and tomorrow.

Mr. THORNE: If the President of the Board of Trade is to make a statement on the agreement with Finland, he must know the text of that agreement.

Mr. WALLACE: 69.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, before concluding a trade agreement with Russia, he will take into account the importation from that country of certain linen products at prices with which Dunfermline linen manufacturers find it impossible to compete?

Dr. BURGIN: My hon. Friend's representations have been noted.

Mr. WALLACE: Will the hon. Gentleman in order to inform his mind accept some samples for comparison?

Dr. BURGIN: I shall be delighted.

Mr. LEVY: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether it is not a fact that the importation of these cheap goods retards the possibility of increasing the wholesale price?

PATENTS AND DESIGNS.

Major PROCTER: 64.
asked the President of the Board of Trade how many complete specifications have been postdated under Section 6 (3, b) of the Patents and Designs Act, 1932, and the chief reasons which have led to such post-dating?

Dr. BURGIN: The number of applications post-dated, under the provisions of Section 6, Sub-section (3, b), of the Patents and Designs Act, 1907, as amended by the Patents and Designs
Act, 1932, is 138. The reason in each case was that specified in the Subsection, namely, that the examiner had reported that the invention particularly described in the complete specification was not substantially the same as that which was described in the provisional specification.

Major PROCTER: Is the hon. Member aware that the figure given shows a substantial increase over previous years, and that the practice of post-dating has, in the case of certain poor inventors, resulted in compelling them to invalidate their own patents? Will the right hon. Gentleman instruct his Department to curb this drastic action, and permit the added matter to be treated as a cognate provisional, where such added matter is the natural development of the original idea?

EXPORTS.

Mr. MALLALIEU: 65.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the value and the volume of the United Kingdom export trade in the June quarters of 1932 and 1933, respectively?

Dr. BURGIN: The declared value of the exports of the produce and manufactures of the United Kingdom during the quarters ended 30th June, 1932 and 1933, was £94,702,000 and £85,584,000, respectively. Eliminating the effect of price changes, the volume of the exports in the second quarter of 1933 was about 6 per cent. below that of the corresponding period of 1932.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: May I ask whether the information that the hon. Gentleman has just read out is not available in the Board of Trade Journal in the Library?

Dr. BURGIN: It is.

MYSORE GRANITE SETTS (IMPORTS).

Mr. BURNETT: 66.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that certain contracts are being placed by London boroughs for the supply of granite setts and kerbs from Mysore; and whether he can state what is the rate of wages paid to quarry workers in Mysore?

Dr. BURGIN: I am informed that purchases of granite kerbs from Mysore are being made by London boroughs, and that the wages paid to quarry workers in
Mysore are on a piece-rate basis ranging from 1 rupee 4 annas to 2 rupees per day.

Mr. BURNETT: Will the hon. Gentleman keep a careful watch upon this new development, which constitutes a serious threat to the quarry workers in this country?

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Cornish granite is far better and more durable than that from Aberdeen?

NATIONAL SHIPBUILDING SECURITIES, LIMITED.

Mr. PEARSON: 67.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the names of the firms which comprise the National Shipbuilding Securities, Limited?

Dr. BURGIN: A list of the shareholders in National Shipbuilders Security, Limited, may be inspected at Somerset House on payment of the usual fee. If the hon. Member desires to know whether any particular company is a shareholder, perhaps be will communicate further with TOP.

SHEET GLASS (IMPORT DUTY, AUSTRALIA).

Captain SPENCER: 79.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he is aware that by a Report, dated 26th January, 1933, the Australian Tariff Board recommended to the Government of that Dominion certain duties, involving a preference to this country, on plain sheet glass; and why the Order of the Australian Government, dated 23rd September, 1932, prohibiting the importation of sheet glass has not been withdrawn?

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): The matter forms the subject of communication with His Majesty's Government in the Commonwealth of Australia, and I am not in a position to make any further statement at present.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman likely to visit Australia soon?

JAPANESE COMPETITION.

Mr. HANNON: 81.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, in view of the representations made to him by silk manufacturers in this country on the subject of the pending ruin of the art-silk
textile trade in the West Indies consequent upon the growth of Japanese competition, what steps the Government contemplate to safeguard the livelihood of workers in this branch of the silk trade in this country?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Elland (Mr. Levy) on the 19th July, of which I am sending him a copy, and to the statement which I made in the Debate on the Adjournment on the 20th July.

Mr. HANNON: Will my right hon. Friend be in a position to make a statement of the policy of the Government in relation to this Japanese competition when we meet in the autumn?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: A very full statement was made by the President of the Board of Trade as to the exact course of the negotiations which are being conducted, and, as soon as those negotiations are completed, I shall be able to make a statement.

Mr. HANNON: 82.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, in view of the representations made to him from the chamber of commerce of Part of Spain emphasising the flooding of that market by canvas shoes from Japan and indicating the elimination of the British tend Canadian exporter, what measures are under consideration to safeguard the British and Canadian workpeople in this trade?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: A number of colonies, including Trinidad, have adjusted their tariff duties so as to provide a margin of preference on rubber and canvas boots and shoes equivalent to 1s. a pair, which was the margin asked for under the Ottawa Agreements. On the general question of Japanese competition, I would refer my hon. Friend to my reply to the preceding question.

Oral Answers to Questions — HEARTS OF OAK ASSURANCE COMPANY, LIMITED.

Mr. CRAVEN-ELLIS: 70.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if the liquidator of the Hearts of Oak Assurance Company, Limited, is ready to make a statement as to what is the position of the policyholders?

Dr. BURGIN: I understand that owing to the complicated nature of this liquidation, the liquidator is not yet in a position to make an estimate of the position of the industrial and ordinary life-policy holders.

Mr. CRAVEN-ELLIS: May I ask that steps be taken to expedite the liquidation of this company?

Dr. BURGIN: The liquidator in this case was appointed by the court. The Board of Trade have no jurisdiction over the general conduct of liquidators. Although they can ask the liquidator to give a reply to any particular inquiry, the general liquidation is a matter under the control of the court.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRISH FREE STATE.

Captain CROOKSHANK: 77.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he is aware of the discrimination which is taking place in the Irish Free State against industries the bulk of the capital of which is held by united Kingdom shareholders; and, if so, whether he proposes to make any representations to the Irish Free State Government on this subject?

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: I am, of course, aware that, in pursuance of the financial dispute with this country, the Irish Free State Government have taken a number of measures which amount to discrimination against the United Kingdom. This is one of the many matters which will have to be dealt with in any general settlement with the Irish Free State.

Sir JOSEPH LAMB: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is the intention of the Government to support the loyal Irish in Southern Ireland?

Oral Answers to Questions — MIGRANT LAND SETTLEMENT, AUSTRALIA.

Major HILLS: 78.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether his attention has been called to the report of the Royal Commission on British Migrant Settlers of which Chief Justice Dethridge, of the Commonwealth Arbitration Court, was chairman, and which reported on 3rd April last; and, seeing that the report criticises the scheme initiated in 1922–23 as a joint enterprise
by the British Government, the Commonwealth Government of Australia, and the State Government of Victoria to settle imperial ex-service men and others on the land and that the settlers have not obtained what they were led to expect, he will take steps to obtain for them compensation for their losses?

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: I would ask my right hon. and gallant Friend to await the statement on this subject which I shall make later to-day.

Oral Answers to Questions — HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (DIVORCE LIST).

Mr. COCKS: 80.
asked the Attorney-General the number of defended and undefended cases in the divorce list for this term, and the number of cases in each category which have not yet been dealt with; and whether the services of the President of the Divorce Division are available for the trial of these cases?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Boyd Merriman): As the reply includes a table of figures, with the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate the answer in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. COCKS: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman kindly answer the second part of my question?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: If the hon. Member wishes, I will read the whole answer. It is as follows:

Number of Cases in Divorce List this term.


—
Disposed of.
Not dealt with.
Total.


Defended
…
85
131
216


Undefended
…
430
78
508

It is expected that all the undefended cases will be disposed of this term, which, ends on 31st July.

Of the 131 defended cases not dealt: with, 23 are in that position by reason of" the inaction of the parties concerned.

Of the remainder, 37 are in fact undefended cases but for the fact that the petitioner seeks the exercise of the discretion of the court in his or her favour.

These cases, therefore, are not likely to occupy more than a day of one judge's time.

The services of the President of the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division are available for the trial of all such cases as above.

Mr. COCKS: Is it not a fact that great hardship is being caused to many unfortunate people, who cannot either get married or divorced, by the President being taken away from his usual duties for a considerable period?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: As the hon. Member will see when he reads the table of figures, many of the cases are undefended cases, in connection with which there can be no arrears.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE (SISAL TWINE).

Mr. L. SMITH: 83.
asked the Postmaster-General, with regard to the experiments being made with twine made from sisal, whether this sisal is of Empire origin; and, if not, whether he will see that experiments are made with such sisal?

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir Ernest Bennett): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative; the second, therefore, does not arise.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. LANSBURY: Will the Lord President of the Council say what the business will be when we come back.

Mr. BALDWIN: On Tuesday, 7th November, the Second Reading of the Expiring Laws Continuance (No. 2) Bill, Firearms and Imitation Firearms (Criminal Use) Bill [Lords], British Nationality and Status of Aliens Bill [Lords], and Local Government Bill [Lords].
Wednesday, 8th November: Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill, Second Reading, and Expiring Laws Bill, Committee and Third Reading.
Thursday, 9th November: Remaining stages of the Firearms and Imitation Firearms (Criminal Use) Bill [Lords], British Nationality and Status of Aliens Bill [Lords], and Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill.
Friday, 10th November Remaining stages of the Local Government Bill [Lords].
On any day, if there is time, other Orders may be taken.

Mr. LANSBURY: I am afraid this looks like an imposing window-dressing programme, but I suppose it is not as difficult as it looks. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if it will he possible to introduce the new Unemployment Insurance Bill in dummy form tomorrow so that it may be printed and circulated during the Recess.

Mr. BALDWIN: It is proposed to give notice of presentation of the Unemployment Insurance Bill on the day we reassemble, on 7th November, so that it can be in the hands of Members on or immediately after that date. It is the intention of the Government to bring the present Session to a close and begin a new Session as soon as practicable after 7th November. The Second Reading will take place at the beginning of the new Session, when the Bill will be re-presented. This arrangement will, it is hoped, meet the convenience of the House and enable the Bill to be in the hands of Members in ample time for its consideration. As a matter of fact, it will be in their hands some three to four weeks before the Debate. It is not yet drafted. The drafting will proceed through the holidays. It is a very complicated Bill and the drafting of it will be no easy task. It will not be ready in draft for its final examination until a comparatively short time before the House is to sit, and I fear that what the right hon. Gentleman asks is impracticable.

Mr. LANSBURY: There will be an opportunity to raise this again, but, as the Bill is so important and is such a very big Measure, we may have to ask for more than three or four weeks to consider it, because most Members will want to understand it from beginning to end before we come to debate it.

Mr. BALDWIN: Of course, it is always open to the right hon. Gentleman to put these questions when he has had time to consider them. He will see the Bill on or immediately after 7th November, and I think he will find that, for the purpose of Second Reading and the beginning of its consideration, three to four weeks will be ample time.

Ordered,
That other Government Business have precedence this day of the Business of Supply, and that the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)." —[Mr. Baldwin.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to—

Burghead Burgh and Harbour Order Confirmation Bill, without Amendment.

Amendments to—

Dover Harbour Bill [Lords],

East Hull Gas Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the law with respect to the supply of electricity, and for other purposes connected therewith." [Electricity (Supply) Bill [Lords].

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.

Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Orders of the Day — DOMINION AFFAIRS.

3.57 p.m.

Mr. LUNN: This afternoon we are to discuss, questions affecting our relations with the Dominions. The Dominions are self-governing, and as a result of the Statute of Westminster they may be said to be practically independent, but in reality they are, with us, the British Commonwealth of Nations. They are in the family, and I have no doubt there are many Members who will desire to have the air cleared on various matters in connection with our relationship with the Dominions. There are such questions as the differences between this Government and the Irish Free State, the plight of a number of British settlers in Victoria, the future of the Empire Marketing Board, the Commission which is now in Newfoundland inquiring into its financial position under Lord Amulree, the future of the African Protectorates, Bechuanaland, Swaziland and Basutoland, and the Ottawa Agreements. Regarding the Ottawa Agreements, I agree with what was said yesterday by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) as to the disastrous effect on this country that they are going to have. I am sure that that Conference, as I said many months ago, was a ramp and to-day many people are realising that what was said then is true and, no doubt, the agriculturists and manufacturers of this country are going to pay dearly for what transpired at that expedition to Ottawa. If the faith of our people in conferences is fading, Ottawa, in my opinion, has been their greatest justification.
But I want particularly to deal to-day with the plight of the deluded British settlers in Victoria, and to endeavour to
secure some declaration from the right hon. Gentleman as to the attitude of the Government regarding their position. I have for many years taken an active interest in migration. I have been connected with the Overseas Settlement Committee for 10 years. I have taken part in arranging schemes, and not one of them, including the 3,000-family scheme, do I regret since the time the right hon. Gentleman made me the chairman of the Overseas Settlement Committee. Knowing, as I do, that there are many people who would like to go overseas, and that the spirit of adventure has not gone from our people, I wish that there were opportunities for them to go to-day, and I should be quite ready to take the same action in support. Our policy, however, since 1924, has bean only to support any scheme of migration when there were opportunities of their obtaining a livelihood, and our pet schemes have been where families could be guaranteed some possibility of a better life than they have here. I am not going to be a party to encouraging anyone to go overseas to-day if better conditions are not to be assured than are here. At the same time, I would rather that we took possession of the land of our own country, and settled the people on the land at home, even than in the Dominions.
May I at this moment pay a tribute to a man who has just passed away, Lord Burnham, who was a great advocate of Empire development and Empire settlement. I have sat with him for many years. I have known no man with a better knowledge of the Dominions and more able to give information as to the circumstances in certain areas where settlement was likely to take place. He had a constructive mind, are, whatever may have been his position before 1924, he fell in with the idea that our people should not be sent out unless there were opportunities for them. I am sure that in that direction this country has lost a great servant. This afternoon we have to deal with a scheme which was arranged immediately after the passing of the Empire Settlement Act, 1922, and I am quite satisfied that it is the worst scheme of anything that I have heard of in its results on the migrants. Hundreds of families, all of them with money, and some with thousands of pounds, were deluded into going under false promises,
which, in my opinion, were almost criminal, and they have lost every penny. They were expected to have not less than 1,500 per family, and they hoped and believed that they were going to lay a good foundation for the future for their children, and many of them are now destitute. It has been very painful to me to see many of these people, who are not concerned about themselves because of what they have lost, but are concerned that their children will never have a real opportunity. They are without work or opportunity, and they are in despair.
Even if favourable conditions for migration were to come again, such a failure and such an imposition as this scheme has been will be a deterrent to careful and thoughtful people. Then, after they had been duped, and nothing had turned out as promised, and the migrants were in desperate straits, it took years to secure an inquiry into their complaints. They went to Victoria in 1923, and the Royal Commission to inquire into their complaints was appointed only in December, 1930. They inquired into 311 cases, and reported early this year. It has taken two years to inquire into these cases, and, if I may express my opinion, I should say that it shows slovenliness, carelessness and indifference. Not only that, but the commission were not given power to deal with the cases. They were not given power to recommend any remedy or redress in any or all of the cases, but to see if the complaints were justified in regard to the facts in each particular case.
Let me deal with some points from the Commission's Report. I may say quite clearly that none of the schemes in Australia were made between the British Government and the States. This scheme was not made between the Overseas Settlement Committee and Victoria. This country only dealt with the Commonwealth Government, but the British Government were supplied with all the information. They knew what was happening, and I am quite sure that they have a responsibility in the matter. Take the agreement made in September, 1922, in which are the following clauses:


"(1) The British Government, the Commonwealth and the State desire to encourage and facilitate the migration from Great Britain and settlement in Victoria
2812
of persons suitable for and desirous of permanently settling upon the land.
(2) The British Government has agreed to co-operate with the Commonwealth and State in encouraging such migration by granting, in accordance with the Empire Settlement Act, a loan of £300 to each person so migrating and settling.
(3) The State has undertaken to provide 2,000 farms for such migrants in accordance with the scheme of settlement' set forth in the Schedule 'as a first instalment of a scheme to provide 10,000 farms.'"
Those were the conditions laid down in the agreement. It was a good scheme on paper—a good scheme to attract the pick of the basket in this country. But the campaign of recruitment, like the campaigns for the War, was very highly coloured, and the publicity was very delusive. Then note the nature of the appeal made to people in this country to go out under the scheme:
It is hoped that the scheme which the Victorian Government, in co-operation with the British Government and the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia, is now able to put before the British public, will prove attractive to the middle classes of Great Britain, to farmers, demobilised officers of the British and Indian Armies, ex-naval officers, public school men, and the sons of professional and business men who are on the look-out for a career in which they may reasonably hope to reach a position of independence as the ultimate result of their labour.
That was the appeal which was made, and we know that there was a desire that everyone who went should have money. If they were not experienced farmers, they were to have the guarantee that in every case the inexperienced settler was to be given, in some way or other, 12 months' practical training in farming before he started the business of farming on his own account. Then they were to be provided with farms on which they could earn not less than £400 a year. None of these conditions have been realised or carried out, and the Commission say so quite definitely. The Commission say that it may be that same of them would not have made good farmers, but it cannot be said that the cause of failure was mainly their own default or defect. The Government of Victoria are to blame for deluding people in this matter. I would say that they should indemnify them. I have received a number of communications, and the right hon. Gentleman will have had similar ones, from members of the Settlers' Association, and from the president, who have heard something of
what is happening in Victoria. They are not satisfied with what is suggested as a settlement, which they say will be totally unacceptable.
I think that it is the duty of this Government to do something to encourage the Victorian Government to do their duty by these people. But the British Government are not free from blame. They were parties to the scheme, and there should have been more care, more inquiry, and not so much haste to put the Empire Settlement Act into operation, because this scheme was agreed upon a few months after the Empire Settlement Act was passed. It can only be described by those who have read the Commission's Report as a rotten scheme. Take the first case that was inquired into by the Commission. It is on page 23 of the Report—T. S. Adams. It will be seen that the British Government are in some way responsible. The Report says:
First block badly drained; would not provide living. Second block too small; would provide living and part only of commitments.
They say in brackets:
Complainant is within Clause 6 of £34,000,000 agreement, being an assisted migrant, and relied upon the British Government co-operating with the Government of the State of Victoria in the migration scheme.
That is what they say in that case, and they say [...]in many more of the 311 cases into which they have inquired. I hope that we shall have some statement to-day from the right hon. Gentleman which may help to meet the justifiable claims of these unfortunate people. They are English people, and the Victorian Government have deliberately played with their tragic circumstances. In saying that, I want to state quite clearly that there is a duty upon our own Government, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is going to try to meet it when he replies this afternoon.
I leave that matter to deal with another which has occupied a good deal of time during the last 12 months, that is, our difficulties with the Irish Free State. I have never hesitated to offer my opinion upon this matter, and to say, quite clearly, that I have believed in the justice of our claim that the Land Annuities should be paid to us. I said I am not a lawyer, but that has been my feeling with regard to the matter. But I have also said, from the very beginning, that
when Mr. De Valera offered arbitration, it should have been accepted. There are as good men outside the Empire as there are in, just as there are as good men in as there are outside. I have felt the whole of the time that we should have accepted that offer and gone to arbitration, because I felt that our case was a justifiable one, and I have no fear of accepting an offer like that for arbitration, although, as I have said before, I have never met the impartial chairman, and I have had some experience of him in industrial matters. For 12 months now this has been a miserable and discreditable business, and no one in the House can have satisfaction out of what has occurred. To-day there are rumours of a settlement. Is there anything in the rumours, because a settlement is what we desire. I am not out simply for obstruction, opposition and criticism. I was not trained in that school at all. I desire and want to see a settlement.
Let me call attention to a few of the facts. It is just a year since we passed the Irish 'Free State (Special Duties) Act imposing 20 per cent. ad valorem duties on Irish produce, and hardly a week has passed since that time but what either this Government or the Irish Free State have dealt with this matter, competing one against the other. Immediately we passed the Act the Irish Free State Government retaliated on the 26th July with duties of an unspecified amount upon our goods. On 31st August they imposed further duties, and again on 27th September, and on 7th November this Government issued a Treasury order increasing the duties upon Irish Free State imports. The Irish Free State published a new schedule of duties on 10th November, and on 14th March they again added further duties, and then instituted a system of bounties over and above the duties which they were imposing. To take one illustration of what they were doing, in view of the duty of £1 per ton imposed on the 15th November, 1932, upon potatoes imported from the Irish Free State into Great Britain, the Free State Government granted a bounty of £1 per ton upon potatoes exported, the, bounty to operate from the 1st December. That has been the position, competition one with the other all the time, and they have beaten us every time.
I will give a few figures to show the House what has been the effect of this
economic war. The figures which I am about to give show the value of the trade of the Irish Free State with Great Britain during corresponding periods of 1931, 1932 and 1933. United Kingdom imports from the Irish Free State in the three months ended 30th September, 1931, amounted to £9,350,033, and in the three months ending 30th September, 1932, to £5,389,464, a decrease over the previous year of £3,960,569. In the following three months ended 31st December, 1931, the amount was £10,624,206, and in 1932, £6,650,808, a decrease of £3,973,398. For the three months ended 31st March, 1932, it was £7,379,359, and for the corresponding three months of 1933, £4,006,134, a decrease over the previous year of £3,373,225. So that in the first nine months for which the new duties were applicable, the total of the import into the United Kingdom from the Irish Free State had declined by £11,307,192. I could give the figures of the value of the United Kingdom domestic exports to the Irish Free State, but it will suffice to say that in the same nine months for which the new duties applied, the value of United Kingdom exports to the Irish Free State declined by £8,067,936. We cannot continue with a policy of that sort.
Yesterday the right hon. Gentleman answered a question as to the effect upon my industry, the coal industry. They 'are talking about finding work for a few men upon a new experiment, which I welcome, in extracting oil from coal, but when one sees the loss of employment and the derelict coal-mining villages which supplied all their coal practically to the Irish Free State, it is time that the matter was considered very seriously. In the six months ended 30th June, 1931, we exported 1,173,341 tons, in the six months ended June, 1932, the total was 1,147,053 tons, and in the six months ended June, 1933, the total was 663,881 tons. We are going down all the time in the amount of coal we are exporting to the Irish Free State, and as a result men are becoming unemployed more than ever in 'an industry which has got nothing out of the policy of the Government, and has suffered from everything that they have done.
We were told the other day that the amount due to this country from the Irish
Free State was £4,864,000, and that we had received under the Import Duties Act on goods imported from the Irish Free State 22,727,000, so that we are down by £2,000,000 to say the least of it. I understood from the very beginning that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Dominions said that not 'a penny of this money should come from the United Kingdom taxpayers, but that it would come from the system he was instituting on the 12th July last year. It is not a satisfactory position, and I am not pleased at having to make this declaration 'and to quote these figures. I want to see a settlement. Is the right hon. Gentleman trying to secure a settlement He should know what is happening. He has no doubt seen in the newspapers during the last two days what has been suggested, and that certain statements have been made in the Dail in the Irish Free State. Is he going to take advantage of the gesture from the Irish Free State, which also is reported in the Press—I do not use the information officially—or is his Government going to allow the present position to continue? It is time that we heard something, and I hope that to-day we shall be told the position, and that the Government intend to see that a settlement of the difficulties between this country and Ireland is arrived at the earliest possible moment.
I want to mention another matter which is hardly a question of a self-governing dominion but which comes under the Dominions Office. It is the position and the future of the three African Protectorates which are under the Dominions Office. It is important that we should know the attitude of the Dominions Office towards these three important and very extensive parts of the African Empire. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that in 1930 he took what I think was a very wise step. He separated the position of Governor-General from that of the High Commissioner, and he appointed a High Commissioner for these areas. I agreed with it, and agree with it to-day, and hope that it will continue, but I should like to see the High Commissioner have more power in his office than, I understand, he possesses at the present time. In 1930 a charter of liberty for the millions of natives was laid down by the Labour Government. That charter differs a
great deal from the policy towards the natives of the Government of the Union of South Africa. We wish for them to remain under the direct rule of the Dominions Office, which, I understand is the policy of the Government, rather than that they should be included in the Union of South Africa. We should regard the introduction of South African native policy into the Protectorates as disastrous. To hand them over to the Union of South Africa would be a great breach of faith. The other day I saw a book by Mrs. Hodgson and Mr. Ballinger, who have done very useful work in these Protectorates. This is one of the statements which they made upon this matter:
The natives of the Protectorate are now as opposed to absorption by the Union of South Africa as they were 30 years ago to absorption by Rhodesia. They cling now as then to the imperial connection. To the native of Bechuanaland the transference of the Protectorate to the Union means the compromising of the whole of his future, the loss of all his hopes of remaining a free man, and of becoming a 'civilised' one. He clings to the liberal tradition of Britain as he dreads the illiberal tradition of South Africa.
But these Protectorates cannot remain as they are to-day. They are poor. They are depressed. They are a reservoir of cheap labour for the mines in the Union. What steps is the right hon. Gentleman taking to implement parts of the report of Sir Allen Pim whom we sent out to Bechuanaland to make a report, and whose report is now in his hands? Is he going to support organised recruiting, improved educational facilities, increased agricultural instruction and implement water schemes as is suggested in the report of Sir Allen Pim? Is the right hon. Gentleman also going to give more power to the High Commissioner to develop and open up new territories for cattle raising?

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): Can my hon. Friend tell me what he means by giving more power to the High Commissioner? It is the first I have heard of it. Has anyone ever intimated that the High Commissioner does not have sufficient power?

Mr. LUNN: If the right hon. Gentleman is able to tell me that the High Commissioner has full and complete powers in the matters I have mentioned I shall
accept the statement. That is the position I want because I am a supporter of the idea of the High Commissioner and I know that we have a good man there, and I would like to see him take steps so that the report of Sir Allen Pim could be put into actual operation.
There is only one other matter with which I wish to deal, namely, the future of the Empire Marketing Board. I have been a member of that board for some years. It has done useful work, and I should like to pay a tribute to the staff of the board, and particularly to its able Secretary, Sir Stephen Tallents, and to the many voluntary members of its committees for what they have done in order to improve Empire trade. Some people say that Governments can do nothing. Well, in the matter of publicity, I will put the Empire Marketing Board during the last few years against arty other organisation which may be mentioned in this country. It has 1,800 poster boards and the best men in the country engaged in the publicity work. It has distributed to 22,000 schools regularly information which has enlarged their geography of the Empire, and its film unit, under John Grierson, has done more than most people imagine in the direction of the improvement of British films.
In marketing it has instituted canvassing throughout large areas in the country. There is nothing that can be pointed to which has increased the sale of Empire produce in this country more than the work of the Empire Marketing Board. As a member of that board I have seen objections from certain parts of the Empire because of what was done to increase the sales of produce from other parts of the Empire. That has gone on for a long time. We have had shops in different parts of the country where we have sold samples. It is the overseas parts of the Empire that have got the best part of the bargain out of the Empire Marketing Board, and they have never paid one penny towards it. They could not have got such a cheap form of advertisement for their products whatever they had done, even if they had paid their full contribution, as they ought to have done, in the carrying on of the work of the board. It has been the British taxpayer all the time who has had to pay, and I say that the policy ought not to continue under which 'the British taxpayer has to pay every penny. If the board is to continue
the overseas part of the Empire ought to pay their share towards the continuance of its work.
Work of the greatest value has been done by the Empire Marketing Board in scientific research. The greatest amount of money has been spent in that direction and I hope that that work will not cease. Even if the Board goes out of existence some organisation ought to be set up which could make use of what has been done by the Board in the direction of scientific research. What has been done in the colleges at Amani, Trinidad and in many institutions in this country in order to eliminate pests and waste in regard to produce in various parts of the Empire is most wonderful, and is a great tribute to the efforts of the Scientific Research Committee of the Board. Very valuable indeed has been the work of the Board in order to enable the Empire producer to compete with the American producer by improving, grading, packing, cold storage and carriage to this country. I hope that some means may be found to carry on this work for the complete elimination of pests and of disease which is of particular importance with regard to the produce from the overseas part of the Empire.
If the Board is to be continued and the overseas parts of the Empire do not contribute, I would say, let it be an English marketing board. It is not often that England comes into the Empire when we are speaking of Empire. [HON. MEMBERS: "Britain."] I usually use the word "Britain," but I would substitute the term "the United Kingdom" for the name "England." Unfortunately, the Dominions will not pay towards the Marketing Board. If the Board has to close down they are letting go a great opportunity. I do not see any possibility of its being continued or any reason for its being continued in its present form unless the overseas part of the Empire will pay their share towards the work that is done. Realising as I do what a great thing it would be for them, I should like to see the work of the Board continued, and I am satisfied that it would be to the advantage of all parts of the Empire that it should continue.
This is the last business day of this part of the Session and we are pleased to have this opportunity of discussing our relations with the Dominions and those areas
which come under the jurisdiction of the Dominions Office. The interest of the Labour party in the British Commonwealth of Nations is not less than that of any other party in the State. Their welfare is a great concern of the Labour party. Although we differ from the Government on many points in regard to them, their future development and prosperity will be at all times our objective, and we shall always resent, as I think I have heard the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs resent, the idea that the British flag is alone the emblem of the Tory party.

4.36 p.m.

Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: I should like in the first place to associate myself with the hon. Member for Rothwell (Mr. Lunn) in his plea for the Empire Marketing Board. I have had the honour of being a member of that Board for some years, in the first glace on the invitation of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) and afterwards under the chairmanship of Lord Parmoor and the present Secretary of State for the Dominions, and I can testify to the invaluable work carried out by the Board, to the devoted service of the officials of the Board and the immense advantage which the Empire as a whole, and the Dominions and the Colonial Empire in particular, have derived from its work. I hope that some means will be found of keeping the Board in being, at any rate for some time, in the interests of the Colonial Empire and that perhaps later the Dominions will be able to come in and once again help to expand the Board's activities. The work that the Board has done in regard to publicity and, above all, in regard to research has been invaluable. The work of research is still going on and the advantage to this country and the Empire of the immense investment of public money which has already been made in the work of scientific research will be lost if it is prematurely closed down.
I should like to say more on the subject of the Empire Marketing Board, but many other hon. Members wish to speak. Therefore I will refer to another subject raised by the hon. Member who has just sat down, namely, that of the Irish Free State. The hon. Member referred to the hopes which he entertained and to the
rumours which he had heard that a settlement was in the offing. I do not want to say very much on this subject before the Secretary of State speaks. We are waiting to hear what he can tell us, but I would stress the view which many of my hon. Friends take, in agreement with what the hon. Member has said, about the importance of an early settlement of this dispute and about the justice of our case as against that of the Irish Government on the question of the annuities. I think that there is also general agreement in every part of the House about the desirability of having an Empire tribunal before which to arbitrate, for it would be a thoroughly bad precedent if on the first occasion when a difference of opinion occurs between a Dominion and the Mother Country we had to go outside the Empire for our tribunal to settle it. On the other hand there can be no doubt about the damage that is being inflicted upon the trade of both countries, and there is no doubt about the far more serious damage which is being inflicted on the Irish spirit and the Irish attitude to this country. I hope that there will go out from the Secretary of State and the House generally to-day a message to the Irish people, as a result of this Debate, of sincere friendship and a wish to base that friendship on the foundations of justice and equity.
We are a great, powerful and wealthy nation and we are dealing in this case with a relatively poor, weak but proud people, a people who on the one hand have rendered great services to the British Empire, for which we all ought to be grateful, and on the other hand have engaged through the centuries in a struggle, a successful struggle, to preserve their national individuality. Let us therefore be generous in our dealings with Ireland, not committing the political folly of expecting immediate gratitude. It will be a case of casting our bread upon the waters in the belief that such generosity will be justified in the future. Let us remember that the greater our confidence in the justice of our case, the more convinced we are, as I am, that if the case is referred to an impartial tribunal we shall win, the more necessary it is that the Irish people should have confidence in the impartiality of the tribunal which will decide the dispute. Let us be willing to stretch to the utmost
the possibilities of finding a basis on which Mr. de Valera and his Government can meet us on terms of equality and without loss of personal dignity.
I turn now to the question of the Ottawa Agreements and to a. review of the working of those Agreements during the year that they have been in operation. Let me say as one who as I mentioned before has been for some years a member of the Empire Marketing Board, as one who is devoted to the principle of Imperial unity and who believes actively in the necessity of Imperial co-operation, that I hope the Debate on the Ottawa Agreements will not proceed along the lines of a recent Debate in another place and on the lines of the answers which have been given in this House by Ministers; on the lines of metaphorically calling the Dominions to the Bar of this House and lecturing them on what is called the Ottawa spirit. The Dominion Governments are not responsible to this House but to their own people, who will visit their sins and their follies on their heads in their own time. We have to deal with our own Government. They have negotiated these agreements on our behalf. The bad workman who complains of his tools is not more contemptible than the blundering negotiator who, having made a bad bargain, querulously complains that the other party to the bargain is not carrying it out in what he chooses to consider is the spirit of the agreement.
It was this Government who wanted the original bargains binding for a period of years and it was the same Ministers who, when we vehemently protested about the binding character of the agreements for a period of years, stressed the political importance and the economic necessity of five year periods. These same Ministers are now flattering themselves that in regard to some of the articles of these agreements they last for only three years and that in regard to others they last for only one year. We pointed out that changing economic conditions and fluctuations in the values of currency, such as have occurred in Canada, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand, would soon make these agreements out of date, but this Government insisted on these binding agreements for a period of years.
Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it.
was the attitude of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Joseph Chamberlain's son, and during the passage of the Ottawa Agreements Act through all its stages in this House we were not allowed to alter so much as a word or a comma or a letter. Now the Government tell the Dominions that the letter, so sacred only a few months ago, has become relatively unimportant, it is the spirit that matters. If these agreements do not embody the spirit of Ottawa, why did the Government sign them? The difficulty of the Government is not that of reconciling the letter of these agreements with the spirit, but of reconciling the letter of these agreements with the gloss they put upon them for their own political advantage in this House and in the country.
The farmers of this country were told to wait for Ottawa; that was the slogan from a thousand platforms in agricultural constituencies. Now they are being told another fairy story, about a fairy prince, with the unromantic name of the Minister of Agriculture. But this fairy prince is lost in a thicket; the sleeping beauty has awakened and is shouting for nourishment and for her fairy prince; but he is caught in the brambles of Ottawa.
Under the terms of the Ottawa Agreement there is, for example, nothing to prevent dumping, yet all of us have agreed in denouncing dumping in the past. Mr. Asquith said that where there is a question of subsidised exports Free Trade was not a doctrine of economic quietism or Quakerism, and the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) and another Liberal Members have frequently declared their willingness, where a case of dumping is proved, to take measures against it; indeed, the only anti-dumping Act on the Statute Book was put there by a Liberal Prime Minister. But, apparently, nothing was said about dumping at Ottawa. There was the opportunity of coming to an agreement with these friendly Governments to exclude dumping, but nobody thought it worth while, and now when certain Governments in the Empire, in the course of national planning, find it to their advantage—just as some Governments are putting on tariffs and quotas—to go in for the vicious method of export subsidies, we cannot blame them
for the agreements were signed in such a way that they are entitled to do it. The farmers of this country must blame the British negotiators who signed these agreements. Nevertheless I hope that the Dominions will recognise that all sections of opinion in this country deplore dumping, and all supported the Government in their efforts at the World Economic Conference to deal with these export subsidies by foreign nations. We, therefore, hope that the Dominions will come in and try to prevent the adoption of all these artificial stimuli, which have the inevitable effect of encouraging overproduction and driving prices downwards.
The farmers are not alone in their complaints. The export trades too are in a ferment. The latest complete figures available are for the end of March of this year, and the returns for the six months show that as compared with the previous year imports from Empire countries have declined from £133,000,000 to £127,000,000 and exports from £89,000,000 to £80,000,000. The Canadian Tariff Board was not appointed until May and has not yet lowered any tariffs. It is true that there were some insignificant reductions at the time of the signing of the Ottawa Agreements, but against that new tariffs have been imposed in Canada against our goods, and also in Australia. Nor are the Canadians convinced that there is any necessity to lower tariffs. A letter appeared in the "Times" the day before yesterday from the President of the Canadian Chambers of Commerce, in which he declares that the members of the Chambers of Commerce were astonished when they came over here to find that in certain commercial circles in Great Britain the Canadian duties on British imports were considered to be unreasonably high, and had been largely increased in recent years. In this letter textiles in particular are referred to. Here are the figures for textiles. In the case of cotton printed piece goods, the last Conservative tariff was 25 per cent. The Liberal Government reduced it to 18 per cent.; the next Conservative administration, under Mr. Bennett, raised it to 60 per cent., and at Ottawa it was reduced to 58.5 per cent. In the case of woollen piece goods, the first Conservative tariff was 30 per cent.; then the Liberals lowered it to 24¾ per cent. The Conservatives, then sent it up to 68 per cent., and at Ottawa it was
lowered to 64 per cent. Wool over-coating again, the Conservative tariff was 30 per cent., the Liberals lowered it to 24¾ per cent.; then the Conservatives sent it up to 100 per cent., and at Ottawa it was lowered to 93 per cent. Mr. Bennett has made quite clear his attitude as Prime Minister. In the Canadian House of Commons, in answer to Liberal questions, he declined to give a pledge that the Canadian Government would not increase the tariff against British goods. He said:
I am afraid one could hardly make that promise.
And he has put on new tariffs since He also declared that:
The Government did not consider themselves hound by the decisions of the Tariff Board. The extent to which it will be necessary to vary the tariff will be entirely within the discretion of the Government.
Referring to the agreement to allow British manufacturers to make representations to the Tariff Board he declared that:
Only applications which were sponsored by the British Government would be considered.
And he added:
The understanding was that the British Government would be very cautious in forwarding cases to Ottawa for hearing.
That I take it has been at any rate honoured in the letter and in the spirit. Mr. Bennett has a clear political philosophy, based on a definite theory of protection. I think it is all wrong land that it will bring disaster to Canada and interfere with Imperial and international trade, but he is not responsible to us but to the Canadian people and we must leave him to be dealt with by them. But the British Government are responsible to us. They signed these Agreements, and in the Debates in this country and in the House have put a gloss upon the meaning of these Agreements which the Dominions have never accepted. The Secretary of State for the Dominions described certain proposals made at a previous Conference by the Canadian Government as humbug, and when he was challenged by hon. Members who are now his supporters, and who were greatly shocked at such a phrase, he explained that what he meant was that the Dominions said: "We want you to change your fiscal principles but we will only change certain details of ours."
Does not that exactly describe the situation with which we are confronted at the present moment?
There was one very important symptom of the real situation as between the Dominion Governments and our own in the concluding stages of the Ottawa Conference. According to the "Times" and other newspapers-1 asked a question about it at the time but received no answer—a resolution was proposed by our delegation setting forth our policy as one leading to a lowering of tariffs. According to the reports the Dominions refused to accept it, and so far the British Government have never explained it. We have tried to get an explanation from them in this House but they have never explained why, if we were all in agreement on this point, the Dominions refused to accept that Resolution. In fact, it is clear that they are not in agreement with the policy which the British Government declared was its own policy and which they have expounded in this House and in the country. I am going to trouble the House with a number of quotations from the speeches of leading Dominion statesmen. I know that it is a rash thing to read quotations, but I am not out to make an amusing speech. I want to get at the truth of the real attitude of the Dominions towards the Agreements. The truth has not hitherto been told in this House. I will not deal any further with Mr. Bennett, although there tare many other quotations from speeches he has made in the House of Commons at Ottawa which show that he is against any reduction of tariffs. Let me take Mr. White, the Minister for Trade and Customs in the Australian Government. In March last he said:
Taking into consideration freight, primage and exchange, which last is a bounty to the primary producer, we find that the protection amounts to only 75 per cent. against British 'products. The Board is employed at top speed in examining the enormous schedule before us to see whether it is in accordance with the spirit of the Ottawa Agreement. It has gone through 214 items, and has declared 200 of them to be in accord with that spirit. I am satisfied with the achievements of the Board.
Then Mr. Forbes, speaking in the New Zealand Parliament said:
I can assure hon. Members opposite that the dairy farmers and others feel that very substantial advantages have been given
them by Great Britain. And what are we giving them in return? We are taking 2½ per cent. off the duty on confectionery, leaving it at 27½ per cent.; and we are also taking something off apparel, hosiery and silk and artificial silk goods, in doing which we have just anticipated what Parliament put into an Act to be done in April while we are doing it in October. That is all the sacrifices that the secondary industries are asked to make for the very substantial advantages given to our primary industries.
Mr. Lyons, speaking in the Australian Parliament on 2nd November last said:
There have been no tariff reductions as the result of Ottawa. If there had been no Ottawa Conference reductions would have taken place just the same. Great Britain is giving something more definite and more binding than Australia is giving.
Mr. Gullett, also speaking in the Australian Parliament, on the 13th October last said:
This agreement does not reduce the protective level against British imports; it very generally increases the protective level against foreign imports.
In the face of this unanimous opinion on the part of Dominion statesmen, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, only saying what more influential Ministers like the Lord President of the Council and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have said, in moving the Third Reading of the Ottawa. Bill, said:
In principle the Empire had abandoned Protection.
There is no humbug here on the part of the Dominions, but there is by our own Government the practice of the art of political imposture.
What is this spirit of Ottawa to which the Government have always appealed? To some of us it seems a spirit of economic hostility and exclusiveness, directed against other nations. If other nations told us that they were coming to agreements to which we were not allowed to be parties, to discussion of which we were not even invited, with the avowed object of diverting trade from this country, we should hardly regard it as a step towards closer co-operation in international trade. Only recently three nations came to an agreement, to which it was open to us to adhere, Belgium, Holland and Luxembourg. And yet we stood. by the most-favoured-nation clause, and refused them the power—mistakenly as I think—to carry that Agreement into effect, because we be-
lieved it would be contrary to our interests. Economic co-operation between ourselves and the United States is vital to the future of the peoples of both countries. Canada, which should be the bridge, is revealed at Ottawa as a thaw-bridge to a hostile British Empire camp. The effect of Ottawa on the world economic situation was no less serious than my right hon. Friends and I feared when we resigned our offices in this Government. Mr. Roosevelt said in an interview in October of last year, just after the Ottawa Agreements were published:
I do not think it is even practicable or wise to attempt the creation of an Empire economic unit. The result must be inevitably to create antagonistic economic units elsewhere. We on our part should undoubtedly be tempted to look after our interests by making exclusive arrangements with other countries outside.
Mr. Mackenzie King, as by no means unfriendly critic, the leader of the Canadian party which first introduced the principle of Imperial preference in the Empire, said:
If the World Economic Conference were to succeed, much done at the Ottawa Imperal Conference must be undone.
Not only were the economic Imperialism and the efforts at Ottawa to divert trade from the United States a deplorable way of approaching the debt negotiations at Washington, but it was at Ottawa that the grave of the World Economic Conference was dug.
We want co-operation with the Dominions. Mr. Mackenzie King, the leader of the Liberal party in Canada, has pointed the way. He would reduce tariffs to where they were under the old Liberal Government, and then give Britain a 50 per cent. preference. Cooperation on the basis of freedom—that we believe is the true line of advance. Ottawa was supposed to he the foundation of a great new Imperial system. The cracks are already gaping in the stones before you have started to build. I described these Agreements as apples of discord, spreading discord, as they Ai ere, between all parties in all the great Dominions. Two out of the three parties in Canada, Australia and this country were and are opposed to them. A new and heavier crop of the same fruit is ripening to-day on the Ottawa tree. The harvest of this fruit will go on increasing until the tree is hewn down and cast into the flames of a general election.
How then are we to obtain constructive co-operation from the Dominions? Never will the Dominions give it on the basis of the Government's Socialistic policy of restriction and control, so dear to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and to the Minister of Agriculture. "A terrible policy," Mr. Bruce, the representative of Australia in London, called it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer regards price raising as the end at which to aim, and restriction of production as the means. We regard restriction as spelling unemployment for us here and economic disaster for the Dominions. We regard price raising as the means, and expansion of production as the end at which to aim. It is on those lines and on those lines only that we can obtain the co-operation of the Dominions—a policy of expansion, of Imperial development, of migration, a policy which would restore the balance between creditor and debtor, allay the anxiety of our farmers, find work for our unemployed and quicken the unity of the Empire.
Not, until we restore Imperial economic relations to the basis of freedom on which our political relations with the Dominions so firmly rest, shall we evoke in the economic sphere the true spirit of common weal. In the darkest days of this country it was that spirit of common weal which moved all the peoples, races and languages of the Empire to come together and sacrifice together, not each for themselves but each for the Empire as a whole, and for the good of mankind. In freedom we shall find strength economically as we have found it politically. Let us use that strength, not exclusively for our own advantage, but as citizens of the world, realising that it is in the welfare of other nations that we shall find our own prosperity for an Empire
which doth thus shall never moved be.

5.6 p.m.

Mr. AMERY: Sorely tempted as I feel to indulge in an answer to the anti-Ottawa spirit of the spe[...] which we have just listened, I pro[...] leave that task to my right hon. [...] Secretary of State for the [...]ominious, and still more to the [...] development of Empire trade which will show who is right and [...] is wrong in this controversy. I have risen only to add a few words in support of what my right hon.
Friend said at the outset of his speech, and what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Rothwell (Mr. Lunn), who both pleaded for a continuance of the work of the Empire Marketing Board. I have been associated with that work from its inception, and there is nothing I can say too strong in praise of the staff of the Board and of the voluntary workers associated with them, not only for the spirit they have manifested, but for the genius with which they have discovered new lines of economic co-operation, new forms of research, new methods of linking research with the practical needs of industry, and new methods of inspiring the public of this country and the whole Empire with an interest in Empire development. The work they have done has been of interest and value to the whole Empire, and I entirely agree that it is only right and proper that, in the long run, that work should be supported by the whole Empire.
When on the other hand it comes to saying that that work should be stopped here and now unless the Dominions are ready to agree at this moment to a scheme of financial co-operation for carrying on the work of the Board—and I might add, in passing, the equally important and valuable work of the Imperial Institute—that unless they are willing to do that the whole of that priceless work shall come to an end, I begin to ask myself where has the statesmanship of this country gone to? This particular form of Empire co-operation is comparatively new. The conception of financial contribution towards it is something new, and in these hard times it is something difficult. Are we really going to stop dead after the first few years because the whole of the Dominions are not yet ready to come into the scheme? If that had been the attitude of the Dominions in offering preference to this country we should never have come to a preferential scheme. For 30 years or more the Dominions gave preference to this country on a very generous scale, before we made any effective response whatever. Surely the mother country of the Empire is capable of equal breadth of view and farsightedness in this matter, vis-a-vis the Dominions.
As a policy of co-operation this is an entirely new start. Hitherto the money given to the Empire Marketing Board was given avowedly and expressly in return
for certain Empire preferences, and in lieu of certain preferences which we for political reasons found ourselves unable to give in 1925. We accordingly promised the Dominions that they should have the full money equivalent of the preferences which we had promised, £1,000,000 a year, until such time as we should be able to fulfil our original promise. If we are standing on the strict letter of the pledges, if we are not going beyond what we pledged ourselves to do until the Dominions respond, it is well worth remembering that we have never yet in our total expenditure fulfilled half our pledge. As a matter of fact not only the Dominions have benefited by the Empire Marketing Board. I think that this country and our Colonial Empire have benefited in at least an equal measure, and have received at least an equal proportion of the expenditure. Indeed, if you count where the money is actually spent a very much larger proportion has been spent in this country and in the Colonial Empire than in the Dominions.
Therefore, if there is to be that kind of narrow, huckstering insistence on pledges, the weighing of the exact fulfilment of pledges, then the Dominions would be fully entitled to say, "On your pledge of 1925 you have not fulfilled half of what you promised, and you owe us for the period 1925 to 1932 something like £5,000,000. You might very well go on supporting the Empire Marketing Board at the past rate of expenditure for another seven or eight years before the question of equal contributions comes into the picture." That is not the line that I would suggest, and I would remind the House that the Dominions have never taken up that line. What I do urge is that the Dominions should be given reasonable time to come, as they can and in the way they can best afford, into this great scheme of Imperial benefit. I suggest that in the interests of this country and of the Colonial Empire, for which we are trustees and from whom presumably we are not going to exact compulsory contributions, the Marketing Board and the Imperial Institute are both fully worth preserving. Then let us preserve them, conferring upon the Dominions only such incidental advantage as the board can give in its stride. Let us offer every opportunity to the Dominions to come in and contribute,
either for particular pieces of research, or better still by joining the organisation and taking part in its governing body and contributing on a regular basis.
I suggest that the board should be set up as a body under a Charter on the lines of the Imperial War Graves Commission, as suggested by Sir Fabian Ware in an appendix published with the Report of the Committee on Imperial Co-operation. The Charter should be such that any member of the Empire contributing a regular contribution would be entitled to have a seat on the board. Contributions from other sources might also be accepted. In that way I am sure you would get, at a very early date, cooperation and contribution from at any rate some Governments. In a matter of this sort what we need is not a formal all-round scheme, but practical progress. It is not essential for the continuance of the board that every Government of the Empire should come in. Let us support it for our needs in this country and as trustees for the Colonies. I have very little doubt that other parts of the Empire will then respond to our spirit and come in and help to expand the thing further until it becomes a truly Imperial organisation supported by every Government.
In all earnestness and sincerity I make this plea. If you destroy what has now been built up, you are not merely stopping a useful expenditure; you are destroying a. living organisation with a spirit of its own and with a new tradition, something which is positive and creative and of incalculable value in the development of our Empire. The same expenditure distributed among the Departments would never achieve the same result. Therefore, I make an earnest appeal through you, Sir, to the Government to maintain the essential work of the Imperial Institute and the Empire Marketing Board on such a scale as will be at any rate sufficient fully to meet the needs of the Colonial Empire and of agriculture in this country, and to do it in such a constitutional form as may most easily encourage and invite the co-operation of the Dominions, when and as they feel the need for co-operation.

5.17 p.m.

Mr. MAXTON: I understand that our Debate to-day is to be curtailed as other Debates have been in the course of this
the last week before the Recess. Therefore I cannot on this occasion make the somewhat long speech which I hope to deliver on some suitable opportunity when the Secretary of State for the Dominions is the responsible Minister at the Despatch Box. I am sure that most Members of the House will agree that to deal adequately with the subject of the Dominions Secretary would require more than the few hours between a quarter to four o'clock and half-past seven o'clock. In contradistinction to other hon. Members who have spoken I must frankly say that I am more interested in the Dominions Secretary than I am in the British Empire. I think the part which he has played in British politics for many years and the fact that he holds the position which he holds to-day, ought to give serious thought to every earnest student of political affairs.
I had hoped on this occasion to have raised a controversy that might have been useful on the topic "Why the Dominions Secretary?" The luck however that has pursued the right hon. Gentleman through his political career still follows him today. He has a very much shortened Debate; he has the holidays in near prospect, with that amiability of spirit which descends upon Members of the House when the prospect of release is near at hand, and he has the additional advantage of meeting us on one of the very doggiest of the dog days. Therefore I have to leave a subject on which I would have preferred to speak, undealt with because of the limitation of time. But I throw out this suggestion, which I hope will be conveyed to the Prime Minister for consideration during the 14 weeks when we go on Recess and Ministers get down to serious work. It is the suggestion that the Prime Minister should face the necessity of reconstructing his Cabinet. I think the time has come when that duty, which falls on every Prime Minister at some period in the course of his Administration, is due to be undertaken by the present Prime Minister.
There are young men offering themselves for promotion. There are old and experienced men offering themselves for dismissal. There is a general falling-off in the élan—I think that is the term—of the Cabinet as a whole, demanding that there shall be a transfusion of new blood into the veins of the Government. When that task is undertaken by the
Prime Minister I hope he will consider whether the present Dominions Secretary is being used at his point of maximum efficiency in the position which he holds to-day. Under the late Labour Government it became necessary to promote the Lord Privy seal of that day to the position of Dominions Secretary. At that time there was much arduous work and responsibility attached to the office of Lord Privy Seal. Those duties have been removed so that the office of Lord Privy Seal again becomes the sinecure that it was formerly. Indeed it is now being held by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bewdley (Mr. Baldwin) in addition to the office of Lord President of the Council, My suggestion is that in the interest of this country and in the interest of the Dominions, the Prime Minister ought to consider promoting the right hon. Gentleman opposite, this time from the Dominions Secretary-ship to the position of Lord Privy Seal.
I make that, suggestion in all seriousness. There is work to be done at the Dominions Office affecting all parts of the world and affecting the lives of, millions of people. I relieve the right hon. Gentleman entirely of responsibility for Ottawa. As he knows, and as we know, the Dominions Secretary had not the primary place in the Ottawa settlement which his official position might have entitled him to demand, if he had been a different type of man from the genial person that he is. I acquit him of all blame for the very grave failure of Ottawa. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) while he criticised the results of Ottawa with masterly eloquence and with an energy that on a day like this must be a subject for our admiration, concluding with a peroration that was a model of what a peroration ought to be, did not at any point face the issues involved. At least Ottawa recognised the necessity in these days of a planned economy taking the place of unregulated, unplanned, unorganised competition. The only suggestion which I could draw from the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's admirable speech and admirable peroration was that we ought to go back to the days of unregulated, unrestrained free competition—a state of affairs that has reduced this nation and most parts of the Empire to the condition which they are in to-day.
As I say, I acquit the Dominions Secretary himself of prime responsibility for Ottawa. That is not because he did not go there with the idea of a planned economy. He went there with the idea, imposed upon him by his Conservative allies, that the only way to plan, regulate and direct the economy of the world was by the method of tariffs. The agitation that is arising in Certain quarters of the Conservative party is a recognition that, though tariffs may have some influence in checking the flow of goods here or there, they do nothing to plan world production and world trade as it will have to be planned in the near future if we are not to go down into chaos.

Mr. HANNON: What about the protection of our own workers?

Mr. MAXTON: I know the hon. Member's enthusiasm for the working class of this country and his desire to help them in every possible way. I Watched his votes in the last Parliament and in this Parliament, and on every occasion when there was a vote to reduce the standard of living of the working class in this country, whether it was in respect of unemployment insurance or health insurance or medical treatment, the hon. Member always voted for the reduction. If that is his idea—it is the Conservative party's idea, and I recognise him as one of the most loyal supporters of the Conservative party in this House—of saving humanity, that is by cutting down the standard of life of the working class, then personally, I do not want to see them having that kind of salvation.

Mr. HANNON: As the hon. Gentleman very kindly gives way for me, may I say that if I did vote for reductions they were not votes to reduce the standard of living of our people. They were votes for reductions which meant maintaining the financial stability of this country in face of the world and re-establishing our credit in the face of the world.

Mr. MAXTON: That is one way of excusing it.

Mr. HANNON: I make no excuses or apologies for what I have done.

Mr. MAXTON: Well, that is one way of explaining it away. But the actual thing which the hon. Member did was to
reduce the standard of life of the poorest section of the community—

Mr. HANNON: I challenge that statement.

Mr. MAXTON: It is in the records. The Division lists 'are there. The hon. Member's motive, his ideal, may have been to save rent, interest and profit. That is the meaning of financial stability. That may have been, as I say, his object, but the actual thing that he did was to walk into the Lobby to take shillings from the poorest people in this country. I am not saying that he did not do it with the highest motives. I have never imputed wrong motives to my political opponents. Their errors are not those of the heart but of the head. That is an old one. Let me return to the subject—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]—after, I would point out to hon. Members, much interruption and much provocation. I say that the. right hon. Gentleman the Dominions Secretary is not to be held responsible for Ottawa, and I say quite definitely that the right hon. Gentlemen who left the Cabinet on the Ottawa decision were no loss because they have no contribution to make to the solution of the problem that Ottawa tried to face and failed to face, and that the World Conference tried to face and failed to face. They have nothing to offer but what is indeed the essence of Conservatism—to go back to the good old days, and the good old days, as we know them, mean the hungry forties. Those were the good old days of Free Trade.

Mr. DAVID MASON: No, of Protection!

Mr. MAXTON: Hon. Members opposite do not seem to realise that the withdrawal of Protection in those days did not make any impression on the poverty of the people. Poverty was there before, and it was there after and it is here now. The point that I want to raise with the right hon. Gentleman, as the political head of the federation of communities called the British Empire, or the British Commonwealth of Nations, as my hon. Friend above the Gangway referred to it, is this, that this Imperialism, which bulks so largely in platform talk, this Empire, to which everybody pays a certain amount of deference and lip service, means nothing to the poor man in the
back streets of London, Glasgow, Manchester, Birmingham, or Ottawa. My slight knowledge of ancient history tells me that there was a time when, if a man could say, "I am a Roman citizen," it meant something to him, in whatever part of the Roman Empire he lived. To be able to say, "I am a member of the British Empire," to-day means absolutely nothing to the people who are down and out.
The hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. D. Mason), an Independent Liberal, I think, of the most radical type, returned to this House by a friendly agreement with the Conservative party, stands up for Imperialism and says it does mean something. It means nothing to the people in Edinburgh—nothing. He knows, and the right hon. Gentleman knows, that if a British citizen goes out to Canada with money in his pocket and finds himself unable to get employment, he may be a British citizen of first-class standing, he may be a skilled artisan, but if he gets out of employment and up against hard times Canada throws him out, puts him in the fo'c'sle of a boat that perhaps he helped to build on the Clyde before he went away, and ships him back again like cattle, saying to him, "Probably the motherland will look after you, but we have no responsibility whatever."
The position is not dissimilar in the Australian Commonwealth. My hon. Friend above the Gangway has described the condition of those migrants, who were sent out from this country as a matter of high Government policy. At that time everybody was bitten with the idea that migration was the way to solve unemployment. If you had an unemployed miner and he was shipped from South Wales up to the Highlands of Scotland, he came off the unemployment list of the South Wales exchange, and that was solving the problem of unemployment. I am not blaming anyone at that time. It was there. The economists, I think, had told the politicians that that was the way in which unemployment was to be solved, so we started moving people around. We did not merely move them around this country, but we moved them off to different parts of the Dominions. We sent them to absolute ruin, and it is years now that some of them have been out there in starvation conditions, but neither the Home Government, nor the Commonwealth Government, nor the
State Government said, "Well, these are citizens of the British Empire, these are fellows who fought to maintain the integrity of the British Empire." No, they had ceased to be any of those fine things. They were just members of the working class who had come up against it, and they were left to stew in their own juice.
But let me point this out: The Secretary of State could not snake decisions to relieve those fellows in any way, either those migrants in Canada or those migrants in Australia, but in Ireland, when the Irish people decided that they were not going to pay land annuities, a decision had to be taken at once, because the bondholders were not going to have any source for getting the interest on their bonds. The Dominions Secretary acted with decision and promptitude, and the House backed him up, to pay the bondholders, although he knows that every penny of that money had to come out of the pockets of the poor peasants, working peasants, producers, and to go into the pockets of interest drawers. Similarly, in Newfoundland. The right hon. Gentleman did not do anything to relieve the terrible distresses of the working people in Newfoundland—fishermen, paper workers, lumber workers—not a thing, but the Newfoundland loan was in danger of not having the interest paid. Bondholders 'again, and again the Dominions Secretary acted with promptitude and voted or got us to vote.
I think it is a matter of regret that in this House there should be such a preponderating collection of callow Members, young men, who have no respect for their own job or for the place in which they are working. I could not have imagined real Parliamentarians, like old Sir Frederick Banbury, with whom I quarrelled as bitterly as ever I quarrelled with any Member of this House—

Mr. HANNON: Now a Noble Lord in the other place.

Mr. MAXTON: —now in the other place, or the late Sir Henry Craik, who sat on the back benches there, ever having allowed for one minute a Minister of the Crown to play tricks upon the House of Commons. I cannot see in this House a solitary back bench Government supporter who is the least bit anxious to see that the actions of this Government are kept decently within the estab-
lished practices of this House. The right hon. Gentleman came along at midnight and asked the House to vote half a million pounds, not to set Newfoundland on its feet and give it a new lease of life, not to relieve the starvation of the Newfoundland fishermen or lumbermen, but to pay the interest of the bondholders in Newfoundland. I say here, and I say definitely and deliberately, that the right hon. Gentleman has mishandled the Irish business in the interests of the bondholders, and has since refused the many opportunities that have been offered him of finding a way out of a position that is causing enmity, bitter enmity, between the two nations and harm to the trade and industry of both. I condemn him for his handling of the Newfoundland question, and I condemn him for his handling of the question of the Victorian migrants. I say that every branch of his administrative work has been badly done, carelessly done, and with all the regard that we have for his geniality and good fellowship, it is not right that the welfare of millions of people, struggling hard in difficult times, should be left in the care of a man who takes his responsibilities in this trivial and light fashion.

5.41 p.m.

Mr. LAMBERT: Perhaps the House will forgive me if I leave it to the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs to deal with the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), who has just sat down. I will not interfere in an internecine quarrel.

Mr. MAXTON: Internecine?

Mr. LAMBERT: Well, neighbourly quarrel—anything you like. I want to put one or two questions to my right hon. Friend, and I will be quite brief and, I hope, to the point. I want to say very clearly that there is arising in the agricultural mind a distinct hostility to the agreements at Ottawa. It is there, it is growing, and in the interests of Imperial co-operation I want it allayed. I have evidence here from the Cheshire Cheese Federation, who have approached me. That is a very capable organisation, dealing with something like 60,000,000 to 65,000,000 gallons of milk a year, well organised, and has the most up-to-date business methods. They are protesting that they cannot live under the stress of Dominion
competition as regards cheese. That is in Cheshire. I do not want to weary the House with the quotation, but I have it here. Then I come to my own part of the world, to Taunton. My right hon. Friend, of course, knows Taunton well. When I first got into the House he was driving an engine up and down the railway there, and to his great credit. I would say to the hon. Member for Bridgeton that I think it is to the everlasting credit of my right hon. Friend that he went from his place of driving an engine to become Secretary of State for the Dominions.

Mr. MAXTON: I believe he was a good engine driver.

Mr. LAMBERT: But my hon. Friend must see that there is something in the old country that will enable a man to rise from his place of driving an engine to be the Secretary of State for the Dominions. I hope the hon. Member will have a similar promotion in future—not in the near future, because I do not think he has yet cut his wisdom teeth, but later on I hope I may have the privilege of seeing him here in some very responsible position. That is by the way. My right hon. Friend, I was saying, knows Taunton well. Now here is a report of a meeting held at Taunton last Saturday, and I quote from the "Western Morning News" of the 24th July a report of what one of the speakers said:
If we have been foolish enough to give away our birthright at Ottawa, can anything be done to give the English farmer a chance to sell his cheese? 
There were several other speakers, and there was a general demand for a revision of these Ottawa Agreements. So much for cheese, but let me instance the case of butter, in which my own county, Devonshire, is more closely interested. My right hon. Friend has very courteously given me figures which clearly show that butter is sold in Melbourne at 120s. per cwt. and that that selfsame quality of butter is sold in London at 80s. a cwt. There can be no excuse whatever for that. That is dumping to a degree that I have never heard of. I do not understand why the Australian people do not object to the fact that an article of diet such as butter should be sold for something like 50 per cent. more in the country of origin than it is after paying all expenses and sent these thousands of
miles to London. There is an export bounty of 3d. per pound, and then a depreciated currency, which is equal to l½d. per pound. That is unfair competition to the British farmer. I want to help the Government and try to put before them the views of the British farmers, and I want to say that it is impossible to carry out a great scheme of Imperial co-operation unless we can carry the agricultural interests with us.
The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) has made an eloquent appeal on behalf of the Empire Marketing Board, but how can you ask the taxpayers of this country to advertise dumped Dominion products. I want to help the Government to make the Ottawa Agreements a success, but they cannot be made a success if such things as this dumping go on. Something was said by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) about the spirit of Ottawa. If there was one thing made clearer than another before our Ministers went to Ottawa, it was that the home producer was to have the first of the home market, then the Dominions, and then the foreign producer. I want to ask my right hon. Friend if he can give the agriculturist any information Have these conversations progressed so that he can announce something definite? I want the Government to give the agriculturist something definite before the House rises. They are in a very parlous state. Things are very depressed and deplorable in agricultural districts. It is no use talking Empire sentiment; what the farmer wants is better prices. Can my right hon. Friend give us some information as to whether this extremely unfair competition from the Dominions is to cease, and whether the British farmer is to have the first place in the home market.

5.50 p.m.

Mr. HANNON: I would like to support the plea made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) on behalf of the continuance of the activities of the Empire Marketing Board in some form or another. Following the speech which has been made by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert), I would like to point out to him and to the House that the Empire Marketing Board has been discharging
in this country useful work not merely on behalf of the Dominions and Colonies, but on behalf of British agriculture. I submit to the Secretary of State that in the interests of our own rural life it is undesirable that this highly organised body, which has given evidence of great efficiency and great utility for several years past, should have its operations brought to a close. We have listened to a remarkable speech from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton). The hon. Member is one of the most charming assets we have in this House. Every speech that he makes is full of delightful vituperation of some Member of the Government, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State received this afternoon his full meed of that vituperation which was delivered in the hon. Member's usual kindly, gentle and deftly phrased manner. I would say in reply to the hon. Member that I do not think that those of us who have experience of dealing with the Secretary of State for the Dominions have any right to complain of his attitude towards every question brought before him from time to time. I have never known in the 13 or 14 years I have been in this House a Minister more accessible to private Members and more sympathetic to proposals submitted to him, or one more anxious to consult the desires and feelings of the House in every feature of his responsible office. I think that it is hardly fair, notwithstanding the asperities of political bitterness that occasionally characterise speeches in this House, that an attack of that kind should be made upon my right hon. Friend.
The hon. Member for Bridgeton referred to the situation in Ireland. I will speak with great reticence on that baffling and embarrassing question. I would like, to say of my own knowledge that nothing has been left undone on the part of the Secretary of State to deal with the difficult situation during the whole process of this very distressing dispute. I have the opportunity frequently of submitting certain views to him and conveying to him impressions which I receive from various quarters, and at all times the Secretary of State has been more than anxious to receive proposals which might contribute towards the solution of the very tantalising situation between ourselves and the Irish Free State. It is, of course, deplorable that this state of
things should continue. Because of the fantastic notions of political philosophy held by a single individual, these two nations are apparently to remain in this state of misery at the expense of both sides of the channel for an indefinite period of time. The Irish people are suffering incalculable loss because of the situation and in this country many businesses, with some of which I happen to be associated, are suffering severe loss because of these appalling difficulties in relation to Irish trade. But there is no reason for any hon. Member to charge the Secretary of State with any want of constructive purpose if an opportunity should arise for dealing with the situation.
It would be a blessing of untold consequence to us all if this horrible impasse could be obviated and some agreement arrived at, but as long as politicians in the Free State are hitching their wagons to the stars instead of basing themselves upon solid considerations, so long will this difficulty continue, and so long will all the harassing misery be inflicted on people on both sides of the Channel. It is no good making an appeal in this House to Free State statesmen to treat this question as a question of practical politics. They have all along taken the line of dealing with current economic problems on the stories of the sufferings of Ireland in the days that have passed. Every time you try to bring statesmen of the present in Ireland down to the real significance of the state of affairs, they talk about Cromwell and William III and all that happened in the long terrible story of the relations of Ireland with this country. I always try to point out that, living as we do in a practical age, the maintenance of the standard of living of the people is of more consequence than research into ancient history and that they ought to bring their minds to this question from a totally different point of view.
Every component part of the British Commonwealth of Nations and every part of the Colonial Empire is only too anxious to cement the friendship and the trade relationships between the Mother Country and themselves, and the distressing fact to me as an Irishman in this House is that the one part of the Empire that has not the feeling of responsibility for the best interests of its own people
which would lead them to approach a solution of this grave problem is the Irish Free State. I have communications from Ireland from day to day indicating the most distressing conditions of affairs among my own people, and all I can say, while paying my tribute to the splendid efforts made by the Secretary of State and to his constant anxiety to receive and consider proposals made to him with the desire to see this suicidal policy in Ireland brought to an end, is that I hope and pray that wisdom may descend on those responsible for the continuance of this sad tragedy between the two countries.

5.58 p.m.

Mr. VYVYAN ADAMS: I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State feels better after that archiepiscopal benediction from the hon. Member for Mosley (Mr. Hannon). Like several hon. Members who preceded me, I have a few observations to make to him. There is no Member of the House who would be slow to echo the remarks of the hon. Member for Rothwell (Mr. Lunn) when he said that he wished the right hon. Gentleman would use all the resources of his ingenuity to bring into effect the rumours of the settlement of the deplorable differences which exist between ourselves and the Free State. In my view these differences do not spring so much from politics as from an incompatibility of temperament. Be that as it may, those differences are a sure ground of discredit to both parties involved. Two or three months ago I asked an Irish lady of my acquaintance if she had read the amusing correspondence which was recently published between Queen Victoria and Mr. Gladstone. Being both Irish and a woman, she did not answer my question, but said gratuitously and without the flicker of an eye," Och, the should divil, Oi hate her. It would have been futile for me to suggest to this lady that she might reserve the vials of her indignation for some contemporary Sovereign.

Mr. HANNON: Is the hon. Gentleman quoting the Irish lady exactly, and does he sincerely suggest that an Irish lady would speak of the dear old Queen as a devil?

Mr. ADAMS: Indeed, this is a verbatim report of something of which I was an immediate witness. This lady in fact
said, more, I suppose, in sorrow than in Langer "Och, the ould divil, Oi hate her." And, indeed, I might have said equally abusive remarks about the late Mr. Gladstone with an equal degree of sensibility—a right hon. Gentleman who has been dead, I believe, no less than 35 years. But these arguments, I am certain, would have seemed to this lady both pedestrian and prosaic, and I am quite sure that the Irish, and in particular Mr. De Valera, are not profoundly impressed by the logical processes of my right hon. Friend the Dominions Secretary when he stresses so strenuously Ireland's existing obligations to ourselves. I cannot help remembering that my right hon. Friend the Dominions Secretary, through his policy, enabled Mr. De Valera to get away with this slogan at the last election in January:
On our side is virtue and Erin; on theirs is the Saxon and guilt 
—a picturesque, if somewhat ungenerous chiasmus. But the stock argument runs, does it not, that we cannot afford in time of war to have upon our flank an Ireland. which is hostile to us. I always attempt to reply to that argument that hardly any price can be too high to pay for an Ireland which is bereft of the last ground of complaint. With England and Ireland the relationship should be that of a man and a. woman—the one is strong and the other is beautiful. If my right hon. Friend were here tat the moment I would assure him that this particular woman does not relish or appreciate the technique of the caveman.

Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT: You are a bachelor.

Mr. ADAMS: If it is said to me that a desire to conciliate Ireland at some considerable cost represents a Liberal sentiment, there are two answers. The first is that a good many of us who support the National Government are, in this Parliament, the trustees of Liberalism, and some of us have not forgotten our responsibilities in that regard. But there is a more potent reason for advancing that kind of argument, and that is that there is now no longer any question of the maintenance of the union with Ireland, because the decree nisi was made absolute no less than 12 years ago. My own party, the Unionist party,
always had substantial objections to Home Rule, but 10 years of Cosgrave administration have proved that those objections were not entirely valid. At all events, I ask the Dominions Secretary, through his able and charming lieutenant now on the Front Bench, to see that we do not run into any shocking blunder as we did before. Now that the right hon. Gentleman has coalesced with my own party there is no reason for him to behave as inflexibly as any pre-Treaty Tory. I am always afraid least he should become too high a Tory and fall over backwards.
If my hon. Friend the Member for Moseley had troubled to remain in the Chamber, I would have reminded him in connection with Mr. de Valera that in some remarkable and miraculous way the President of the Irish Free State has escaped the assassin's bullet in a country where battle, murder and sudden death have too often stained her heroic and distressful history; if we can take a fair and honest view of history we have to confess that those calamities have on more than one occasion been set in motion by the English. But, for my own part, I wish Mr. de Valera the most natural death in the world at a ripe old age. My view of him is that he is by no means the knave which the hon. Member for Moseley seems to think, but he is certainly honest, even though he may be a fanatic. We know from the current history of Europe that leadership commonly runs to fanaticism—witness Germany at the present moment; but even in the case of Germany we have to deal with the de facto Government. In spite of proportional representation in Ireland, Mr. de Valera and his party have almost as absolute a majority as the National Government in this country, and the policy of my right hon. Friend the Dominions Secretary, whose absence I am very regretful to observe, is quite likely to rivet Mr. de Valera in the saddle for no less a period than five years from January.
If I may adjust my metaphor, the right hon. Gentleman is standing at the crease in the guise of a famous slogging batsman, the hope of his side or his team or whatever synonym the right hon. Gentleman uses to describe His Majesty's Government. Mr. de Valera advances and delivers a googly, and I can imagine my-
right hon. Friend saying: "Oh, dear!" or words to that effect," here comes another of those horrible twisters." He lashes out with his eyes shut, misjudges the spin, and obligingly spoons a catch into the bowler's grateful hands. He then returns to the pavilion amid loud applause accorded in respect of past boundaries. I venture to express the hope that the future innings of my right hon. Friend, which in the case of the most gifted and experienced Cabinet Ministers seem always to be indefinitely numerous, will not, be brought to an end by so elementary a quietus.
Comparisons are often drawn between Ireland and India. For my own part, I think those comparisons are usually very faint and unjustifiable. There is, I hope, just this inference that one can draw that we, as the heart and the pivot of this great Commonwealth of Nations, cannot always afford to play the grand sahib. If my hon. Friend the Member for Rothwell, whose absence I am sorry to notice, thinks that our case on the annuities is so cast-iron, I must say that the obvious inference must be that our claim must be susceptible to examination by any tribunal of honest men, and in these days, when we are trying to seek to establish the principle of arbitration, it seems to me a policy of defeatism to fall back upon squared shoulders and stiff upper lips and hardened hearts. I do appeal to my right hon. Friend, through the Under-Secretary, that this country ought to be generous to Ireland as only the strong can be generous. I am extremely glad to see that my right hon. Friend has returned.

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: I have not been out.

Mr. ADAMS: I am glad my right hon. Friend is here, because I want to make to him a direct appeal with regard to the Irish situation. I wish to say to him that I hope the Government will be able to deal in this one solitary particular in a spirit of generous conciliation towards the Irish Free State. Let us give them, if they demand it, their extra-Imperial tribunal. For my own part, I am not able any longer to support a policy which can only perpetuate and maintain the shameful and scandalous history of Anglo-Irish misunderstanding, while at the same time, paradoxically
enough, maintaining in power in Ireland the very men whose authority has been so widely deprecated.

6.9 p.m.

Colonel GRETTON: The Irish question is again before the House, and it is difficult for me, having heard so much of it in all its stages, in a long Parliamentary career, to avoid making one or two remarks which are not altogether in agreement with those which have fallen from the hon. Member who has just sat down. I am not concerned to defend my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, because he can well do that for himself; but, at any rate, in dealing with this question let us see where we are. There are still Members in this House who protested against the separation of Ireland from the United Kingdom. We made what resistance we could; we pointed out the dangers—and they have occurred; we deprecated the safeguards—and they have broken down and disappeared. Some hon. Members think, because we are in a difficulty through the fault of our predecessors in this House and British Governments before this one, that the fault, as always, is on the side of the British Government. These Annuities were a matter of treaty. Enormous concessions were made to the Irish people when the Irish Free State Government was set up. Surely there was some obligation on their side to carry out agreements which were entered into not by force majeure, because we were in the position then, as they claim, of a defeated party, and we accepted the defeatist position—not I, but others, the Government of the day. Surely there is some claim for the terms of the treaty to be honoured, and surely the right hon. Gentleman, whatever mistakes he may have made in method or in manner, is right in upholding that agreement.
Far be it from me to say anything to embarrass the Government in a situation in which we find ourselves, or to say anything which would exacerbate the position. We have to realise that at present the administration in Ireland is not unduly friendly to this country. It is avowedly and openly hostile, and ready to do what injury it can to this country. I am sure that Mr. de Valera and his supporters will not repudiate a statement of that kind. The position is very difficult. Can we make it better by sur-
render, by running away from the little remnant of principle that is left? I say not. The right hon. Gentleman has offered arbitration within the Empire; but no, that does not suit the present Irish administration. They must have arbitration outside the Empire in order that they may assert their independence of the Empire—show their independence of us. Surely we must recognise that symbols are worth pursuing. I am not going to pursue this question further. I think that on the whole, in spite of errors in method and in detail, the position of the British Government in regard to the Annuities is a sound one, and they would be imposing an undue and an unjust burden on the British taxpayer if they were to change that attitude and make a surrender to the demands of Dublin.
I have one word to say on the Ottawa Agreements. I regret the remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert). His speech put forcibly, as always, the case for the British farmer, and for the purpose of this Debate he saw nothing but Canadian cheese and Canadian butter—

Mr. LAMBERT: Australian.

Colonel GRETTON: Yes, Australian. There is Danish butter, and cheese from other parts of the world. There is far more in this question than merely a. consideration of the Ottawa Agreements. Our complaint is that the Ottawa Agreements have not been carried out by the British Government. They have been whittling away the principles which supported them in office when they went to Ottawa. Those principles were that the British producer came first, the Empire producer came next on preferential terms, and the rest of the world took what remained. Since the Ottawa Agreements, the Government—I am not saying that the Secretary of State for the Dominions is responsible for this — have been whittling away what the Ottawa Agreements gained. They have been making trade agreements with other countries. They seem to see nothing before themselves but quotas—quotas here, there and everywhere—only there is no quota for the British farmer.
There is a confusion of policy. Surely the British Government intend to give the British farmer a fair deal in Ins own home market, and a preference over all
other people in the British Empire;. The Ottawa Agreements are of great value and are worth preserving, but, it is not, in accordance with the spirit of those agreements when you say to foreign countries: "What do they want? We will give them a quota." The end of it is that the one person who does not get a quota is the British farmer. The Minister of Agriculture appears, on some occasions and in some of his pronouncements, as if he is going to limit the production of the British farmer in order to give quotas to other nations. That is surely the most topsy-turvy and ludicrous position. I urge upon the Government that they should discuss this question in the Cabinet, because this is a Coalition Government as well as a National Government, and the Members of it do not all agree fundamentally. They may have different points of view, but surely they could hammer out some definite policy. The Secretary of State for the Dominions and the Secretary of State for the Colonies will have information as to the state of the world, and surely they can work out a policy for the British Empire which will be intelligible to this House and to Dominion statesmen, and will eliminate all misunderstanding as to what this Government understands by the Ottawa Agreements.
Surely we might have a policy from the Minister of Agriculture, and a general policy for the country which would produce better results than the quotas have hitherto done, and which would result in somewhat better prices for. British agriculture, after all the assurances which have been given. We seem to be pursuing a wrong course, and far too great attention is being paid to quotas and to trade agreements with foreign countries before we are on firm ground and know how we stand in regard to ourselves I urge, with all the power and all the force that I can command or summon, that our future lies in our own agriculture. The failure of the World Economic Conference must have taught us something; let us turn to our own Empire and to those with whom we are already bound by agreement, with advantage to ourselves, our Dominions and our Colonies. There we can settle our economics, and our financial and industrial principles, and there we can bring together the united forces of people throughout the world
who are capable of producing nearly everything that the world requires. Let us take the trouble, the forethought and the foresight to develop those resources, and make them into a benefit for our own people.
We must take our lesson from the defeatism and pessimism which have led us into the present dilemma in the Irish situation, and from those errors which have been made in thinking that our position in this country, or in the Empire, could be benefited thereby. It is our intention to urge the Government to turn their attention to the more prosaic, but far more practical problems, of dealing with the difficulties in which we find ourselves, and which are great enough for our attention, in the development of our great and glorious Empire.

6.22 p.m.

Mr. RONALD ROSS: As the first Irish Member representing an Irish constituency who has had the privilege of intervening in this Debate, what I have to say may have a bearing upon our subject. I have listened with great interest to various opinions from various quarters of the House, and perhaps with the greatest interest to the right hon. Baronet who spoke from the Liberal Benches, the Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair), whose eloquence I always so much enjoy. It may not be invidious to select one portion of his speech from a whole which was entirely delicious. I listened to his discussion of Irish questions with peculiar relish, because I have followed Irish politics from my cradle and have been tolerably familiar with the speeches of Liberal politicians throughout the ages. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that his address to-day had the true 1880 smack. It might have been delivered by one of the great orators who delighted this House in the classic period of politics. I rather wondered whether he has been adjusting his Liberalism, although no one has ever questioned that, to the present situation, and whether he has read the Debate which took place in the Dail on this question on the 14th of this month, because if he had he might alter his opinion. I will refrain from quoting the Debate, because the accusation is so constantly levelled against myself and my colleagues that our only endeavour is to exacerbate difference of opinion. I assure the House that no pro
vocation—we have had much provocation in word and in deed—would make us take any steps, except in defence of our rights, which would exacerbate the difference, which we deplore as much as anybody in this country.
The Secretary of State for the Dominions must be a person whom one would wish to follow in other fields, that is, if there is any human justice, because he is so unfortunate in the offices with which he has attempted to contend. I remember him struggling manfully with the quite hopeless task of trying to cure unemployment. Now, as a rest cure, he is dealing with the Irish Free State and with the other Dominions. The situation in the Irish Free State I look upon as a United Kingdom situation. We are interested in it, but we are interested in it as a portion of the United Kingdom. I do not question the general policy of the Dominions Secretary; I do not think that many of us can. We all feel that there was just cause on two grounds, which are that the money was advanced generously to the Irish farmer to enable film to acquire his holdings, and that the bargain was acknowledged by all the representatives of the Irish people—as they always like to call themselves—not only in that period, but since the establishment of the Free State.
I have certain observations to make about the methods by which the policy has been carried out, although not anything against the offer of an Empire tribunal. When the Irish Free State enjoy the advantages of being in the Empire, as they still are—they have not said that they are not, and those advantages include the sending of Irish Free Staters to the constituency of the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) and his colleagues on the Clyde in considerable numbers—I think that it is only fair that they should bear the corresponding obligation, in matters of this sort, of being subject to an Empire tribunal. There are two points that arise in connection with that policy. The first is, is the right hon. Gentleman getting all the money which he requires to fulfil this debt? Secondly, in getting it, is he getting it from the Free State, or at the expense of people in the United Kingdom? These are two very interesting points, and I would address myself exclusively to them.
On the first point I do not think, subject to what the right hon. Gentleman will have to tell us, that he is getting the full amount of the moneys that should be paid by the Irish Free State. The duties which we have against the Free State are far less in number than the duties which they have against the United Kingdom. A serious suggestion has been put out several times that the position is otherwise, but it is not so. The Irish Free State duties are more numerous and more violent. I asked the right hon. Gentleman many months ago a question as to a new lot of duties that were put on by the Free State. They were so numerous that, on the ground of expense, it was quite impossible to describe them in the OFFICIAL REPORT, because it would have cost several hundreds of pounds. That will give hon. Members an idea of the duties that are put on against the United Kingdom.
Why would it not be equitable for us to copy the duties which the Free State put on? It is very hard to understand why the poor men who are trading find that they cannot send things into the Free State, whereas their opposite number can send them into Northern Ireland or into Liverpool. Why should not the latter have a taste of the Customs Entry Duty, which is a particularly vigorous attack on the small trader, or the packet-and-bottle tax, or the many other types of duties which have been put on by the Free State 2 The policy which the right hon. Gentleman began, with commendable vigour, seems, if I may say so with respect, to have reached the stage of comparative stagnation. The hon. Gentleman who spoke second in the Debate from the Opposition Front Bench produced a case in point in regard to potatoes. He pointed out that our duty of £1 per ton had been counteracted by a bounty of £1 per ton. Surely that was a Heaven-sent opportunity for us to put our duty up another £1, without injuring the harmless producer of Irish Free State potatoes, because the Government of the Free State would be contributing another £1 a ton to the funds which are required.
I pass to the other branch of the argument that I am trying to direct to the Dominions Secretary, that is, the question of whether the people in the United Kingdom suffer unnecessarily as the result of some aspects of this policy. I am
sure that all educated people will be familiar with the campaign against China at some time in the 'nineties, during which the Taku Forts were bombarded. In that case the Chinese commander was an extremely thoughtful man, and, with all the resources of the naval science of those days, he worked out a war game as to what would happen if his forts were bombarded by the Allied Fleets. According to this war game, he was most unsuccessful, but he had for gotten one element, and that was that the Allied Fleets would fire back at the forts. That would appear to be rather the position in relation to some of these matters connected with the Free State duties. There has been retaliation as was only natural in the case of a people with spirit—and I have never denied that my fellow-countrymen in the Southern parts of my country are spirited people; even in this House they have displayed their spirit from time to time, and I hope they will do so again. Naturally, they have retaliated.
Can the right hon. Gentleman wash his hands completely of the effects of the retaliation which has been produced by his very proper policy? He has made observations which rather tend to make one think that that might be his view, but I cannot conceive that it could be his view on reflection. Of course, at the present time, trade is practically impossible with the Free State except in goods which they cannot get anywhere else. I will give the right hon. Gentleman instances—I will keep them within as small a compass as I can, but I could wander over a rather wide field—of the consequences which are flowing directly from his very proper policy, and which seem to me to be easy to remedy.
Let me take the case of the millers. Of course, the millers have lost their trade in the Free State. As far as we are concerned, we have to face some sacrifices in support of a very proper policy, but I do not think we should be asked to face wholly unnecessary sacrifices. One of these is that of the miller who is deprived of his Free State trade, and who at present is finding his own market in the United Kingdom flooded with the by-products of the Free State millers, who, owing to the embargo, are working full time. In. answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Down (Mr. D. Reid), on the
20th June, the situation was set forth in full by the Board of Trade. It is a quite amazing situation. Not only has the export of these by-products to the Free State ceased, but the amount of by-products imported into the United Kingdom from the Free State has increased by thousands per cent. In 1931 it was 837 tons—a negligible quantity. In 1932 it was 5,668 tons, and in 1933, from January to May only, it was 7,204 tons—a quantity which is going to be increased by several hundreds per cent., apparently, every month; and, as far as I know, except for the 10 per cent. duty that is being charged, no steps have been taken to check this attack upon a, very important field for millers in the United Kingdom. It cannot be said here that any question of the Treasury losing money can arise. A duty of reasonable amount would aid the trade, and, as no doubt there would still be some importation of these products, the Treasury would be no worse off than before. I brought this matter forward weeks ago as discreetly as I could—because discretion has always been one of my strongest faculties—but I have been unable, up to the present, to secure any reasoned explanation of the situation.
There is also the question of butter, and I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert) is not in his place at the moment, although he has attended the Debate with assiduity, because this is a matter which I think would interest him. The situation seems to me to be, if I may use such a phrase, peculiarly ludicrous, because, while a duty was put on butter as part of this policy, no serious attempt has been made to cope with the counter-measures which the Free State have naturally adopted in order to deal with the duty. It seems to me that, where the object of the Government is to raise money by duties, the presence of a bounty put on by the Government from whom one wishes to get the money must be of the greatest advantage to this country, because, when the bounty is put on, the duty can be raised correspondingly. The present position, as I understand it from the answers which I have received from time to time, is that the duty is 22s. per cwt., but the bounty has now risen to from 50s. to 80s. per cwt., and the consequence is that butter is being dumped in the United Kingdom at
70s. per cwt., whereas the same butter sells in the Irish Free State at 130s., representing an increase of price of very nearly 100 per cent. inside the country of origin of the butter. I say quite frankly that the position of the co-operative creameries, which are very dear to the small man, and which I believe are very dear to my hon. Friends on the Labour benches, is gravely jeopardised when dumped butter is allowed to come in at a rate which brings down the price of milk to 2½d a gallon.
What is the answer Is the answer that the same situation occurs in the case of Australian butter? That case, of course, is quite distinct, because Australian butter is not fresh butter, but this is direct competition with my constituents, the constituents of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Molton, and the people in any other butter-producing country. I cannot understand why no steps are taken to check such a situation. The right hon. Gentleman was faced with a very similar position in the case of the cattle duties. Cattle were being sold at a price which apparently bore no relation to their value, and he put on an arbitrary duty. As regards butter, I can only hope that he will apply the same principle which he has so properly applied to cattle. As to the question that the Treasury might lose money, no doubt a calculation was made at the time of the last alteration of duty in the autumn. Was that calculation right or not? No alteration has been made since, although I think I am right in saying that the Free State bounty has gone up by 31s. per cwt. since we last altered our duty, and not only has the bounty gone up, but, in the first five months of this year, the importation of Free State butter has increased by 91 per cent. Therefore, it is a demonstrable fact that it would be quite easy for the Government to raise their duty to the extent which the Act permits—60 per cent, more than the present rate—and that that would not lose the Treasury any money. Indeed, it might increase the amount they would receive, and it would ease the butter situation.
I have tried my best to get these matters attended to. I have been passed from Department to Department, and, if I may use the expression, the Departments have passed me "the buck." I
have been concerned with the Board of Trade, the Dominions Office, and the Ministry of Agriculture, and have even been referred to the Treasury. Surely, it is a matter of great importance that this demonstrable misfortune, and, as I think, mistake, should not be allowed to continue any longer. Surely, the people of the United Kingdom must come first. The right hon. Gentleman has been at pains to explain that he is not unduly sympathetic towards Southern Ireland, but I suggest that, in carrying on this unhappy controversy, and more especially in any agreement which is arrived at, the rights and interests of the people of the United Kingdom must come first, and must be paramount above all others.

6.41 p.m.

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: No one regrets more than I do that the Dominions Secretary will be rather pressed for time if he is to give adequate replies to all the questions and observations which have been directed to him to-day. We know that, given time, he will undertake his task manfully, but we warn him that there is a heavy task awaiting him. I will not detain the House with any remarks relating to subjects which have already been dealt with from this side of the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Rothwell (Mr. Lunn), who is very familiar with the ground, dealt with several points, and addressed pertinent questions to the Dominions Secretary, who, I am sure, will make a friendly and full reply when he comes to speak. I should like to say something about the ease of the Victorian Settlers—a specially hard case, and a meritorious case which demands immediate sympathy. I would press the Dominions Secretary to give some immediate relief to these people. Mention has been made this afternoon of certain other interests. The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) referred to the fact that this House readily comes to the assistance of bondholders, and this case stands out in clear contrast with the way in which the House votes relief and indemnities to moneylenders in the Dominions and foreign countries where they have met with disappointment or loss. Here are people who were offered special inducements by Parliament itself, and by the Department which the right hon. Gentleman
now represents, and I think we ought to require from the Dominions Secretary a definite assurance that no time will be lost in giving them the relief which they deserve.
I desire also to refer to the increasingly difficult plight of the natives in the native protectorates in South Africa. These people are living a simple life in their own country under very primitive pastoral conditions. They are enjoying but a very bare measure of subsistence, and there is ground for believing that their condition is getting seriously worse. Pasture is getting scarcer, and water supplies have run dry, while cattle disease and a number of other troubles beset the natives in the Protectorates of Somaliland, Swaziland, and Basutoland. We are anxious that the Dominions Secretary should see that whatever assistance can be given in the form of grants-in-aid to these people shall be forthcoming, and that, in addition, there shall be an assurance as to their position in relation to the Crown and to His Majesty's Government—that there shall be no transference of responsibility from the Government until these people have been consulted, and until the white population and the right hon. Gentleman's Department have been consulted.
I cannot pretend to do justice to the very great subject of the Ottawa Agreements. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) has uttered a timely speech of warning and condemnation to this Government and to the Governments of all the Dominions. That warning would not have been listened to 12 months ago, but affairs have taken a turn after examination of the so-called achievements of Ottawa. There is very grave apprehension in some of the Dominions themselves. I will quote almost prophetic words used by Mr. MacKenzie King nine months ago, showing very great insight and statesmanlike capacity in viewing the problem. He is the leader of the opposition and is likely to be the leader of His Majesty's Government in the Canadian Parliament very soon, when the opportunity comes. An opportunity must be given to Canada, which we expect to be duplicated in this country at some time and which will result in a change of Government here. Mr. MacKenzie King said:
I believe that the bargaining method as a matter of inter-Imperial policy is all
wrong, and I believe that what took place at the Conference in Ottawa has demonstrated that to the minds of those who participated. I do not believe we shall ever see again within the British Empire another venture of that kind made, because I think relations came as near to the breaking point as it is possible for strained relations to come between different parts of a great Empire.
Later in the same speech he said:
That is the great fundamental difficulty at the root of this bargaining business. Sooner or later it involves one part of the Empire interfering in the domestic affairs of another part.
Still later he said:
I contend that what we have at the present time is action not by the executive of this Parliament alone, but by the executives of the various Parliaments of the Empire working together—action under the guise of separate agreements, but which is, nevertheless, establishing a new British Empire fiscal system. If such is the case, it is a very serious thing.
Our complaint against the Ottawa Agreements and the principle underlying them is that it is neither one thing or the other. [...] it not Empire-planning. It is not Empire policy. It is a makeshift policy which does not even make a lasting contribution to the policy of Empire-building and, indeed, will stand as a permanent obstacle to that great task in which we all hope to share. We often hear it said—the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert) is an outstanding example of this kind of misguided opinion—that we must be protected against dumping, not by foreign countries, not by countries where the costs of production, wage standards and hours of labour are lower than our own, but by Australia and New Zealand. There is a growing volume of opinion in favour of protection against this dumping which is carried on quite consistently with the Agreements at Ottawa. But you cannot stop the dumping from New Zealand and Australia unless you come to a settlement of a much larger issue than the mere swopping of a quantity of goods centrally adjusted day by day and year by year. There is a growing financial burden which the Dominions have to carry. New Zealand has a National Debt of about £275,000,000. It increased by no less than £8,500,000 in 1931. As to the allocation of the debt, £154,000,000 of it is due to London, £170,000,000 to New Zealand and £4,000,000 to Australia.
That debt has to be paid for, and it is paid for in a time when export prices have fallen to a level less than they have been for the last 40 or 50 years.
Anyone who has heard the New Zealand case must sympathise at once with the position of these people. Last year, in the time when the National Debt increased from £268,000,000 to £276,000,000, the value of her exports fell by no less than 28 per cent., and it is still falling. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Molton says we must not allow these Australian and New Zealand farmers to send their cheap butter here. We must stop that dumping by some means. Really, the problem is not how to stop these goods, but how New Zealand can pay her debt to this country unless she is allowed to send her commodities. But I have no time to deal with that, and I will not disappoint the right hon. Gentleman. He can rely on me to give him a reasonable time. He is sometimes loquacious, but to-night he will have his opportunity. He will have to come to the point, and I hope he will. The House requires it. I warn him that on some of these questions he must really come down to business, because he is responsible. He has peat gifts and, if he misuses this opportunity for the exercise of them, he will not serve himself as well as he would if he boldly took the great opportunity that is now awaiting him.
The value of the British market to Australia is not realised. We are almost the only market for Australia and New Zealand. We sell in retail shops of all kinds in this country well over £1,000,000,000 of goods every year. There is a great disparity between wholesale and retail prices, but, admitting that the price at entry is very much less than the retail price, this is the largest and most profitable market for each and every one of the Dominions. In the case of Australia, we buy 90 per cent. of her butter exports, 97 per cent. of her pork, 96 per cent. of her lamb, 88 per cent. of her mutton, 38 per cent. of her bacon and hams, 55 per cent. of her canned meats, 79 per cent. of her fresh fruit, 95 per cent. of her wine and 63 per cent. of her dried fruits. The Australian people must sell in this market. Besides that, there is their desire not to be primary producers
for all time—the very natural ambition not to be dependent on the fortunes of one trade and to suffer as they have suffered in recent years in consequence. They say, "We shall at the earliest opportunity build for ourselves industries which will absorb our raw materials. We shall have a population which will consume a, large part of the primary products. We shall make our living more directly by our own organisation in the future than we have been able to do in the past."
Now I come to Ireland, and I shall finish. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to speak to him on a subject which is very dear to me, partly because I am a Celt. All Welsh people have a kind of natural affinity with those across the way, and I feel quite sure, without any offence to the English people, that we are able to understand the peculiar grievance of the Irish much better than they can. There is some intuition born of common suffering and common limitations which enables us to understand. There is an age-long quarrel between Ireland and this country. It has now assumed an economic form which is easily manageable, and should not be allowed to persist. We have lost in the last year employment for no fewer than 4,000 coalminers, who are increasingly being thrown out, of employment because of the failure to supply the Irish market, which took 2,500,000 tons of coal a year. I have been told in answer to questions in the House that 1,000,000 tons less has gone into Ireland from the coal-producing areas of the country. That is the equivalent of a township of 20,000 or 30,000 people unemployed and receiving no income because of this stupid, futile quarrel in which the right hon. Gentleman has played his part. I am sorry if I convey the idea that I blame him altogether. There are two sides to this quarrel. He represents one side. The genius of conciliation is to be blind to the faults of both parties to a dispute.
I shall not provoke greater difference of opinion or resentment on this question if I can avoid it, but I urge of the right hon. Gentleman that, on the grounds of employment, of Empire, of friendship and co-operation, there is no room for delay. He has been a successful negotiator, and I hope he will play the part of a negotiator. There are no longer any real substantial divisions between the countries of the world. We are now in
the twentieth century, in the post-War period. The air carries men and merchandise freely over all national boundaries. The obsolete walls of earlier days simply stand as historical monuments. We have the invisible couriers of the wireless vibrating ceaselessly telling all who would listen that politics, art and learning are all one. The nightly gossip goes around the world, and science, engineering, economics call upon us to widen their scope of service. I ask the right hon. Gentleman in relation to the Irish question to make an effort. Let him throw away completely any personal pride that may stand in the way. If he makes an effort, with the support of the House and the people of the country, he must succeed in bringing peace once again between ourselves and Ireland.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: If any evidence were needed to demonstrate the nature of the day in which this Debate has taken place, it is to be found in the speech we have just heard, and in the earlier speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton). I think it is sufficient to say that I am quite sure some of his phrases were due to the heat, and not to his usually good temper. He wanted the Prime Minister to go altogether, but he did not mind my being Lord Privy Seal. That was very generous on his part. I only assume that in his anxiety for me, he hoped for something for himself at a later time. But there were two phrases he used and used quite sincerely, that ought not to go unchallenged. He made his position quite clear when he talked about Newfoundland, and when he talked about Ireland. His only conception was that the policy was one directed merely to the interests of the bondholders and that so far as he was concerned, repudiation was the only sound method. That is his attitude quite clearly. Although a speech to the masses may read well on that point, he must apply that principle even to the Irish Free State Government, because they were as jealous of the bondholders as he accused me of being jealous—only it was not the money we had loaned for the farmers to own their own farms, but the money loaned to them for the establishment of the Irish Republic. They did not agree with the hon. Member who talked about repudiation in that case, and we must be logical all round.
The Debate indicates, apart from specific questions, two definite lines. First, there are those who say quite clearly that Ottawa is a failure; who say, "We told you in advance it would be a failure." We do not agree for one moment that Ottawa is a failure. Nothing I can say this evening will convince these people. It is no good my wasting time in trying to convince people who from the start not only did not believe in the policy, but who now say, "We were right." I do not think I can convince them, and I am certainly not going to try. I am going to submit this test.
If I can show that, since Ottawa, inter-Imperial trade has increased, and even a bigger share of Imperial trade has gone to this country, as well as we have given it to the other parts of the Empire, that, in itself, ought to be the best justification for Ottawa. We can only deal with a period of 12 months and who will deny that it has been an abnormal period? There is not a man or woman in this House who would not admit quite frankly, so far as every part of the Dominions is concerned, that we all hope and believe that the last 12 months was the low-water mark. If, even in that period, we can show that Ottawa has been justified, I think it is for me to say to the critics: "No, I do not apologise for these agreements." The Dominions, as has been rightly pointed out, were interested in their secondary as well as their primary industries, and the bargain we made was this: Instead of having in the future a prohibitive tariff let it be, so far as we are concerned, a competitive tariff. That, in short, was the agreement we made.
Canada had to institute a tariff board. There were difficulties in the personnel because the first condemnation which would have been made of the tribunal, unless it was absolutely impartial, would have been: "Ah! it is a biased, or prejudiced, tribunal because there are certain politicians on it." The result was that, as they had to establish the tribunal under considerable difficulties, there has not been the progress made in the examination of many of the claims for which we had hoped and wished. I would remind my right hon. and gallant Friend that it is a very dangerous thing for him to take quotations from speeches and hurl them about in an entirely different
atmosphere to that in which they were delivered, and in different circumstances. All the extracts my right hon. and gallant Friend quoted this afternoon were extracts where the various Ministers were answering specific questions in their particular Parliaments, and it is very difficult to judge the circumstances under which they were delivered.
In any case, I am content to submit to the House this particular claim. I am now taking Canada which has been most criticised. Both my right hon. Friends who spoke will be interested to know that, so far as the exports of coal are concerned, since the Ottawa Agreement, for the six months ending March, 1933, as compared with March, 1932, the figures have increased by 88 per cent. in bituminous and anthracite coal. In chemicals there is an increase of 11 per cent.; in cutlery of 57 per cent.; in galvanised sheets of 54 per cent.; in cotton yarns—not unimportant—40 per cent., and in fabrics of flax 272 per cent. It is no good condemning Ottawa when we show that even in these difficult circumstances there has been a marked improvement. I can take four figures for Canada, Australia, the Union of South Africa and Rhodesia showing the proportion of imports from the United Kingdom into the Dominions to the total imports into those Dominions, comparing six months of 1933 with six months of 1932. Canada shows an increase from 19.4 to 23.4; New Zealand from 49 to 51, the Union of South Africa from 45 to 49 and Southern Rhodesia from 42 to 48. I repeat, in giving those figures, that they are given for a very difficult period when it was impossible to judge the full forces of the policy in that particular period.
There is a number of questions I have to answer. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert) raised very specifically, as did some other hon. Members, questions of agriculture. It is not for me to answer for the policy of the Minister of Agriculture, except in so far as it relates to the Dominions side of the question. I am, however, in a. position to say that it has not only been made clear but accepted by the Dominions, without a solitary exception, that our first duty in all these matters is to our own people, namely, the British agriculturists. That policy was laid down at Ottawa. It has been persistently pur-
sued by my right hon. and gallant Friend, and I am in a position to say that, even at this moment he is hopeful of negotiating a satisfactory settlement with our Dominions on that basis.
With regard to the Empire Marketing Board, I do thank every hon. Member of the House Who has paid tribute to the work of that board. No words I could use would be too strong to describe how magnificently they have done their job. At Ottawa, speaking for the British Government, I made it clear that we were prepared to continue, provided the Dominions were equally prepared. They were unable to see their way and, rather than allow a smash to take place, and in order to give time for consideration, we undertook to continue to finance the Empire Marketing Board until 30th September. A committee was appointed, and the British Government's instructions to their representatives were to press for continuance of the board. They did, but for various reasons the Dominions were unable to acquiesce, with the result that they unanimously decided that they could not recommend the continuance of the board. But they not only agreed that the main operations of the work should be continued, especially the magnificent work on the scientific side, but they unanimously decided that they would all co-operate in that effort. The presence of the Dominion representatives in London has enabled me to discuss with them the whole situation, and I am in a position to say that I have every reason to believe that the Skelton Report will be adopted and accepted by all the Dominions. In addition to that both ourselves and the colonies will endeavour to keep in being all the individual branches which affect British agriculture, timber, and the scientific side. I go even further. I shall be ready at any time to co-operate with the rest of the Dominions if it is possible to develop an Empire Marketing Board again.
Very strong feeling has been expressed with regard to the position of the Victorian settlers. I repeat what I have already said to the House that I deplore the delay. Nearly four years have elapsed since the then Victorian Government announced their intention of appointing a Royal Commission. The Royal Commission itself only reported in March of this year. In order to make my position clear, seeing that I have, both
publicly and privately, complained of delay in this matter, it is only fair to the present Victorian Government to say that, although when they were in opposition they pressed for the appointment of the Commission, they have been in office, as hon. Members know, less than 12 months. I also want to make it clear that, as far as the position of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom is concerned, neither the Commonwealth nor the Victorian Government have ever attempted, and they do not attempt even to-day, to attach any responsibility to us.
I deplore the situation because it does incalculable harm to the broad, general question of migration. Every man who comes back dissatisfied and everyone who reads of these cases must of necessity believe that there is something radically wrong, and it deters others who might be well disposed. Therefore, for all those reasons, I not only do not dissociate myself, but I frankly and fully say now that the conditions under which those men went there have not been complied with. I go beyond that and say that the British Government have pressed from the commencement, not only that justice should be done to them, but that there should be an immediate and a speedy settlement. I am happy to say that I have every reason to believe that a final settlement will be reached within a few days, and I hope that it will be such a settlement as will do justice to a body of men who were taking a very great risk on promises made and who endeavoured to play their part. I am sure that the House will not expect me to say more.
I now turn to what, after all, was the most important subject of the Debate, namely, the question of Ireland. Every Member in this House, regardless of his party, and everyone, either in Northern or in Southern Ireland, cannot do other than deplore the dispute and hope for the ending of it. The economic background of the situation between the two nations economically is that roughly 95 per cent. of the exported produce of the Irish Free State is taken by the people of this country, and in the past years nearly 70 per cent. of the imports into the Irish Free State have been derived from the United Kingdom, and even now, despite the present circumstances, 60 per cent. of their imports
comes from this country. All that shows that geographically it is madness to be quarrelling, and it is madness to have these differences. Politically I have no hesitation in saying—and both Ottawa and the presence of the Dominion representatives in London fortifies me in saying it—that in my judgment, and in the judgment of the Government, every political ambition which any Irishman may desire can be obtained and is open to him within the British Commonwealth of Nations. Therefore, with those facts and reasons no one can dispute that it is very unfortunate to have this sort of thing continued. I have been asked whether I could offer some gesture, and I answer my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton right away by saying that it is not true that I have neglected any opportunity. It is not true to say that any offer of any sort or kind has ever been made to the British Government except the official offers made in negotiations between Mr. de Valera and ourselves. No other offer of any sort has been made, and therefore I want to make the position clear.

Mr. MAXTON: I said that you had neglected opportunities. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will allow me to explain. I am as anxious to have exactness and fairness as he is. I did not say that he had refused offers. I said that he had neglected opportunities, and that was all I said.

Mr. THOMAS: Then I accept that statement, and say that I saw no opportunity, and immediately I see any opportunity I shall certainly not neglect it. The other night a very important statement was made by Mr. Lemass. During the discussions in the Free State Senate on Government legislation making permanent the emergency duties Mr. Lemass said:
The Free State Government were prepared to raise the emergency duties immediately if the British Government would do likewise. The Free State would go further and remove them now if there were any indication that the British Government would remove them soon after.
That was a very clear and specific statement. I want to say straight away that if that was intended to open the door, then I accept it on behalf of the British Government. But let us be quite clear what it means. If it means that the duties will be removed by Ireland and by
us, and that we resort to the status quo, that is, that the Treaty obligations will be fulfilled and the money paid, then there is no difficulty whatever. It is very important to emphasise that fact, because the ordinary person reading it would put some other construction upon it, and I want to make it perfectly clear that as far as we are concerned we only imposed the duties because of the money withheld and we will discontinue the duties, all of them, immediately we see a reasonable chance of a settlement by the Irish Free State representatives indicating that they realise and recognise the position. It is only fair that I should emphasise that in view of all the rumours which are taking place. I want to repeat that at Ottawa 12 months ago an effort was made, in Ireland an effort was made, and in the negotiations an effort was made, and I repeat that any overtures of any sort or kind made on behalf of the Irish Free State will not only not be rejected but will be examined sympathetically by us. We only want to remind them of this. The statement is repeatedly made in Ireland to-day that the people of Ireland are adapting themselves to the changed circumstances.

Mr. D. GRENFELL: They have to do so.

Mr. THOMAS: I think that that is true, but it is equally true with regard to the people in this country. But that, instead of helping matters, only aggravates them: instead of contributing towards a solution, it merely widens the breach. Because I do not want the breach to be widened, and I am genuinely and sincerely anxious for peace, and believe that peace ought to exist between the two nations, I repeat again on behalf of the British Government that we shall lose no chance or opportunity to effect an honourable settlement. There is only one other question which I have to answer. With regard to Bechuanaland and the Protectorates generally, I have to indicate on behalf of the Government that the clear and specific pledges made not only by one Government but by many Governments will be kept in mind as far as the present Government are concerned.

Mr. LOGAN: The right hon. Gentleman seems to be in a very conciliatory attitude—and I am sure that everybody wishes the Irish question to be settled—
and I want to ask him whether the Government have considered even in negotiations the question of arbitration?

Mr. THOMAS: The Government have always considered it. Let me say in a sentence, as there seems to have been some misunderstanding about the matter, that as far as arbitration is concerned, even on the limited tribunal, the Irish Free State's position has not been merely arbitration on the items arising out of the Treaty but on the general Irish relationship as far as finance is concerned, even pre-Treaty. That should be made quite clear.

Mr. ROSS: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer some of the points which I put to him? I tried to put them in the most courteous way possible, and he has not touched upon them.

Mr. THOMAS: I thought that they were rather questions of detail. In a word, I understood and appreciated the purpose of my hon. Friend. He suggested that if in the application of the duties advantage was being taken of the situation, more revenue would accrue to the British Government if changes were made. That shortly was the purport of the statement of my hon. Friend. I am taking note of all these matters, but I felt that the bigger issue which was raised with regard to the settlement ought to occupy my time, which was very limited, and that is why I did not deal with them at length. But I assure my hon. Friend that all the matters he raised will receive consideration.

Mr. ROSS: If the right hon. Gentleman will give them attention, I shall be satisfied.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

SALFORD CORPORATION BILL [Lords] (By Order).

As amended, considered.

An Amendment made to the Bill.

CLAUSE 71.—(By-laws as to advertisements.)

7.30 p.m.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: I beg to Move, in page 58, to leave out Clause 71.
I do not propose to move the first Motion on the Order Paper which stands in my name and the names of a number of my hon. Friends—
That the Bill be recommitted to the former Committee in respect of Clause 71 (By-laws as to advertisements)"—
but I am moving to leave out Clause 71. I am sorry that I should find myself engaged in criticising the Salford Corporation, because the last time I mentioned that city in this House it was in their praise in contrasting their administration of public assistance with that of their large neighbour, the city of Manchester. Having regard to the fact that the hon. Member for North Salford (Mr. J. P. Morris) is in charge of the Measure on behalf of the Salford Corporation, I feel under strong obligations to be brief, because I think he holds the distinguished office of president of the amalgamated society of back benchers for reducing the length of speeches of ex-Ministers. Seeing him facing me, I will do my best to comply with the views which he and many of his colleagues hold so strongly.
It was only a week to-day that my attention was drawn to the Clause we are now discussing through letters which I received from one of my present constituents in Croydon and one of my previous constituents in Reading. One letter pointed out that:
A very serious blow has been struck at the interests of the poster advertising industry by a Clause passed by a Committee of the House of Commons on consideration of the Bill. The importance of this decision lies in the fact that if it stands it will become a precedent applicable to all local authorities and of very great and serious detriment to the poster advertising industry.

Mr. THORNE: Liverpool has got it.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I would point out to the hon. Member that what Liverpool has is precisely what the Committee upstairs rejected. They have inserted in the Salford Bill something which is definitely different from what Liverpool has. I do not like either of them, but that is a point we shall come to in due course. Following on these communications, after consultation with one or two hon. Members who had received similar communications, I took the step of putting down the first two Notices of Motion which appear on the Order Paper. Since then I have received a communication
from the Theatrical Managers' Association, under date 26th July:
My association entirely supports you in your opposition to Clause 71 of the above Bill. The extension of such powers as those sought by the Salford Corporation to the urban areas throughout the country might well involve a substantial increase in the cost of poster advertising through the limitation of sites available for it. The theatre, especially in the provinces, depends on poster advertising to a very great extent in attracting the public. Moreover, you will appreciate that the industry is not anxious, in the face of the heavy taxation and competition with which it is now confronted, to incur any further increase in the cost of its essential advertising.
That letter is signed by the secretary of the organisation. The former constituent who wrote to me from Reading was so moved by the nature of the Clause that his letter includes language which perhaps it would be better for me not to quote.

Sir JOSEPH NALL: On a point of Order. May I ask for guidance? As there are eight Motions on the Order Paper relating to this Bill, seven of which are in the name of the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams), is it proposed to take a general discussion which will cover all the Amendments, or is it proposed to deal with them in more strict detail?

Mr. WILLIAMS: Before you deal with that point of Order, Mr. Speaker, may I say that I am moving to leave out Clause 71? What decision the House may take on that Motion it is not for me to anticipate, but if the House decides to delete the Clause, then, obviously, the Amendments could not be moved. I presume that when Mr. Speaker puts the Question on the Motion I am now moving, he will put it in such a way that if I am defeated on this Motion it will still be competent for me to move the Amendments, which really raise three definite points of substance.

Sir J. NALL: I understand that the hon. Member is moving his second Motion, and not his first.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Yes, I said at the beginning that I was not moving that the Bill be recommitted. I thought that would be unfair to the Corporation, because it might hold up the Bill so long that it could not become law this Session.
Therefore, I am merely moving to delete Clause 71.

Mr. SPEAKER: The Amendment which the hon. Member is now moving is to leave out Clause 71. On that Motion anything contained in that Clause can be discussed, and I think it would be for the convenience of the House if the Clause was discussed. Any proposals for Amendments subsequent to this, if the Clause is left in, can be included in that discussion, to simplify matters, and we might have a, Division on the other Amendments, without discussion.

Captain WATERHOUSE: A rather different question is raised in leaving out the whole Clause or merely modifying it. I think it would be for the convenience of the House and for the better elucidation of the matter if we could deal first with the general principle of the Clause and subsequently with the Amendments.

Mr. SPEAKER: I suppose that the subsequent Amendments must have something to do with the Clause. If that is the case, obviously on the Motion to leave out the Clause the whole Clause can be discussed.

Mr. WILLIAMS: The point that I had in mind was this, that we are not so much debating whether we should have the Clause or not but whether there should be a general extension of the existing law to be applicable in Salford. That is a question of broad principle. If the House decides in favour of that broad principle, there will be certain arguments in detail as to how it is to be achieved, and it would seem to me that the best method would be to have one general Debate on the question that the Clause he left out. If the House decides to retain the Clause, then we could have a Debate on the scope of the Amendments to the Clause. I think one general Debate on the Clause and the Amendments might involve us in a difficulty, but perhaps you will guide us on that.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: There are hon. Members who, like myself do not know the merits of the case on either side and it would help those of us who are not taking a very keen part on either side if we could he told in a general Debate what all these Amendments mean in the Clause if it were amended by the insertion of such Amendments. I think that it would be in accordance with the prac-
tice of the House to carry out Mr. Speaker's suggestion. It would be more informing if we could be told in a general discussion what the Amendments mean. Then we could have a, Division on the separate Amendments, if the Clause is retained in the Bill.

Mr. HANNON: I understand that you Rule, Mr. Speaker, that we can have a general discussion on the Motion to leave out Clause 71 and that no Debate would then be necessary on the Amendments. I assume that you will put the Clause so as to safeguard the Amendments.

Mr. SPEAKER: That was my suggestion. We can be told what the Amendments mean during the Debate on the Clause.

Mr. WISE: Assuming that the Motion to delete the Clause were defeated, would a Debate be debarred on the subsequent Amendments?

Mr. SPEAKER: It would not be debarred, but it seems to me for the convenience of the House that it would be better not to have the Debate twice over.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I think it would meet the wishes of everybody that there should be no extensive Debate on any of the Amendments, but there are certain points of detail which would require some rather exact elucidation when they are moved, and it is conceivable that if the House defeated the Motion that I am now moving the possibilities of compromise might develop if there was a Debate,subsequently. I want to make sure that you would not regard it as obligatory upon us not to have any Debate at all on the Amendments.

Mr. SPEAKER: I think that if hon. Members will confine themselves to points of elucidation it will simplify the situation.

Mr. WILLIAMS: It happens by chance that on three or four occasions during this Session of Parliament I have taken a fairly active part in connection with certain local Bills, and I have done that for two reasons. In the first place, I hold the view, to paraphrase an old phrase, that the duties of local authorities have increased, are increasing, and ought to be diminished. As a result of that fact, their expenditure is steadily mounting at a time when the nation cannot afford the burden. The other point of
principle that animated me in connection with the Middlesbrough Bill and the Essex County Council Bill was this, that when it is decided to make a change in the law which has nothing to do with purely local circumstances, although it may be introduced for the first time in a local Bill, it is undesirable that that change should be made through the chance passing—when I say "chance" I do not say it disrespectfully—of an odd Clause in a local Bill, but it ought to be a definite and solemn decision of Parliament in a Bill of national scope.
I think it is a very dangerous thing that we should change the law of the land fundamentally because in one Session of Parliament we grant to a local authority, for reasons which seemed good to them, and for reasons which satisfied a particular small Committee upstairs, who considered the local circumstances but did not of necessity regard the matter from the broad and national point of view. It is very undesirable that we should in that way establish a precedent and that automatically in subsequent Sessions local authority after local authority should get such a Clause included in their Bills, until, ultimately, the time comes when it is applied generally, as was the case in 1925 when my hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley), now one of the Lords of the Treasury, introduced and carried through this House an Amendment to the Public Health Act, 1875, now the Public Health (Amendment) Act, 1925, which made general the provisions which a number of local authorities had obtained, although at no time had this House collectively considered the new powers which they were extending to local authorities.
When private legislation is promoted and obtained certain specific local powers, which in character are essentially local, are included, which is all right, but when they are acquiring a power which is of a nature that if it is desirable there it is desirable throughout the country, my feeling is that the proper way to do it is through a public general Act, when the House is perfectly conscious of what it is doing, and, whether it is right or wrong, it is done in a national Bill. On that ground of principle the substance of Clause 71, if it is to be passed at all, should be a Clause in a public general Act and not a Clause in a private Bill.
On the question of cost, it is exceedingly difficult for anyone to make an estimate of the cost if this Clause becomes the law of the land but, obviously, bylaws will have to be made and applied, a decision will have to be taken as to whether Mrs. Smith's gable-end may be let as a bill posting station, someone will have to examine first and take a decision, there will thus be clerical work and, ultimately, the Salford Corporation will have to increase its staff. I have tried to form an estimate and I say that if this ultimately becomes the law of the land there will be an additional expenditure of over £500,000 a year. There are between 1,600 and 1,700 local authorities, and if you divide £500,000 between them the average per local authority is not much. I suggest that one additional person will be added to the staff of a local authority if the Clause is passed, and that would cost more than £500,000. I congratulate my hon. Friend who has played such an active and successful part in Parliament as the leader of the distressed areas agitation, although I understand that he is not too happy as to how matters have turned out for his own borough as they are deprived of the advantage which he has won for the rest of the country. But, nevertheless, he has made very eloquent speeches on behalf of distressed areas. What justification is there for distressed areas, at this time, to ask for power to incur expenditure for the preservation of amenities when they tell us that they are not in a position to meet their ordinary expenditure?
What is the present legislative position? In 1907 the Parliament, whose composition I profoundly disliked, passed an Act for the regulation of advertisements. It provided that advertisements should not be used in such a way as to interfere with the amenities of parks and pleasure grounds. In 1925, in a Parliament of which I was a Member and which had more interest in the countryside than the Parliament of 1906, the law was amended and the provisions of the 1907 Act applied to rural scenery and the amenities of villages. That is the law to-day; and it has worked reasonably well. I have here the by-laws of a very important local authority. They regard them as important and effective powers; and that local authority certainly presents a little more beautiful appearance
than Salford. I am familiar with Salford. I have tramped most of its streets on business purposes, and I have crossed the marvellous river which separates it from Manchester. No one would mind if it was bill posted and not seen again. Why do Salford want these special powers? Nobody else wants them, except Liverpool, and they have them in a different form. All that is needed for the preservation of real amenities is already provided.
Last year the House discussed this very problem in a Bill presented by His Majesty's Government, all of which I did not like, the Town and Country Planning Act, and in one section of that Act very extensive powers are provided when a scheme is made under the Act. I confess that I am not familiar with the provisions of that Act, but I believe it gives to local authorities every reasonable power they ought to have, and I do not understand why we are being asked to give these special powers to one municipality without being offered any reasons why they should have them. It is not only a question of increased expenditure, but this constant growth of municipal power is a menace not only to our liberty but equally to our prosperity. A great many industries are affected. Obviously the bill-posting industry is one, and the theatrical people another. There are also those engaged in the printing industry, and those who erect hoardings; all of whom would be prejudiced if the powers in the Bill are widely extended. When it was discovered that there was a substantial body of opposition to this Clause a great many Members of the House received communications asking them to support the Clause. From whom did these communications come? They came from the town clerks of a large number of boroughs. The town clerk is a municipal servant; he is not a politician. He is entitled to write to the Member of Parliament for his borough if he is so instructed by his council, but the bulk of these communications, many of them in the form of telegrams, which have been addressed to hon. Members of this House have come from town clerks on their own initiative. I think it is entirely improper that a municipal civil servant should interfere in politics in that way.

Lieut.-Commander ASTBURY: Does the hon. Member suggest that a town
clerk would dare to send a telegram to the Member of Parliament for his division without the approval of his municipality

Mr. WILLIAMS: I am not going to say that it is the general practice, but I know that it has been done in this case. Members of Parliament have come to me and shown me the telegram; and I know why they have been sent. We need not go into precise details. It is obvious that the town council did not hold a special meeting to consider this matter.

Mr. WALLHEAD: The council in my constituency is behind the town clerk in the telegram he sent.

Mr. WILLIAMS: But did they hold a meeting to consider this matter? It is only after I put my Motions on the Order Paper that these telegrams were sent.

Mr. THORNE: Is the hon. Member aware that local authorities receive communications and resolutions from other local authorities, which are placed before them by their town clerk?

Mr. WILLIAMS: That may be true, but in this case I handed in certain Amendments on Thursday and they did not appear on the Order Paper until the Friday. On Friday a hint was given to certain people that they should telegraph, and I am quite certain that the bulk of the town councils concerned have not held a meeting and that the town clerks have sent these telegrams out on their own initiative.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: The hon. Member has made a very serious charge against town clerks. I was a member of a town council for 10 years and as far as I recollect this is what happens. When a local authority is proposing any new legislation in a Bill the town clerk of an authority informs his council of the new proposal, and the town council generally decides on the matter some time before the Bill actually comes before the House of Commons. It is quite possible that in this case the town clerks would know the decision of their councils on this proposal months ago, and consequently dealt with the matter before the hon. Member put his Motions on the Order Paper.

M. WILLIAMS: That will not do. No town council in the country has had a special meeting to consider the Salford
Corporation Bill, except those town councils in the immediate neighbourhood who probably wondered whether they were trying to pinch a bit of their territory. I have been a member of a town council and I know exactly what happens. I know why these telegrams were sent, and I think it is entirely improper. I never take any notice at all of communications from a town clerk unless I am satisfied that he is sending the communication with the full responsibility of the body of which he is a servant. The Association of Municipal Corporations, whose offices are across the road, whenever these issues come up send out a communication to every town clerk that they should write to their Member of Parliament. I have taken trouble on many occasions, in respect of these communications, to inquire whether they have been authorised by the town council, and I am taking this opportunity of making a serious protest against this abuse by these official gentlemen.

Mr. CAPORN: I am sure the hon. Member does not want to be unfair. When a. town clerk sends a letter he says that he is writing at the request of the authority, but in those cases in which he sends a telegram he perhaps does not make that distinction.

Mr. WILLIAMS: The town clerk is a citizen and as such is entitled to communicate with his Member. The telegrams I have seen have been signed by the town clerk, and that is an intolerable interference on the part of these people which should be stopped, and I make a most serious protest against that kind of method of influencing votes in this House. The Salford Corporation case is somewhat unusual, and if there had been a willingness on their part for an accommodation it would have justified our accepting the Clause, subject to modification. I regret that the spirit of compromise has been absent, though not on the side of my friends and myself. We recognise the peculiar position of the Salford Corporation, because 33 years ago Parliament gave them special powers to deal with hoardings. As far as I can make out the Salford Corporation have not been altogether wise in the way in which they have applied these special powers. They have unduly restricted the provisions of bill posting on hoardings, and as a result
there is now an excessive amount of bill posting on the gable ends of buildings. The people of the United States reviewed the 18th Amendment of their Constitution, and as a result produced the "Speak Easies." The Salford Corporation unduly used its powers under the Act of 1899, and, as a consequence, they have bill posting on gable ends which would never have happened if there had been ample provision for bill posting within the borough. Now I am told, "Oh, yes, but they have refused very few applications." That is true, because the bulk of the applications that would have been made were never made, as it was useless to make them.
We ought to reject this Clause. There is no similar Clause in any previous Bill. The Liverpool Act is not an analogy. The Salford Corporation, basing themselves on the Liverpool Act, incorporated the Liverpool Clause in this Bill, but the Committee upstairs, having heard the evidence, rejected that Clause, and the promoters brought forward a different one. Under the Liverpool Clause an aggrieved person would have an appeal. to a court of summary jurisdiction. Under the Clause we are now considering there is no such appeal; the regulations are made by by-law, which will require the confirmation of the Home Secretary, but when the by-laws are to be administered in detail, if their administration is oppressive there is no appeal at all. If in the interests of amenities there is call for some extension of the Acts of 1907 and 1925, and of the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act of last year, it ought to be done in a public general Act, and ought not to be smuggled through as an individual Clause in a private Bill.

8.3 p.m.

Mr. LYONS: I beg to second the Amendment.
It has been fairly and forcibly moved by the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams). When many of us were approached by the Salford Corporation to give support to this Bill for the better government and arrangement of Salford, while we wished to support them in that object, none of us ever intended to give support to the Clause which is under discussion. The Clause puts into the hands of the Salford
Corporation a power which is nothing short of despotism. The Salford Corporation want to have, for the first time in history, a control far wider than that which was intended by Parliament when Parliament passed the Advertisement Regulation Act of 1907, which gave for the first time proper control of advertising in certain areas. This Clause goes far beyond any authority to regulate advertisements. It imposes restrictions on advertising. It is far more severe than the original Clause which was discussed in Committee. It omits the qualifying words which are dealt with in the Advertisement Regulation Acts of 1907 and 1925—words which were repeated in substance in the Town and Country Planning Act of last year; and it confers absolute autocratic power on the local authority. That is entirely unreasonable.
I ask the House to remember that this extraordinary and supreme suggestion comes from Salford, a distressed area. Those who represent that distressed area have come to this House, and asked for a free hand in spending the ratepayers' money to reach the objective in view. My hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon gave a rough estimate of the additional cost that would be entailed if this Clause became law. It is unarguable that if this power is given to Salford it will have to be given to every local authority. If it is right to give it to any authority at all, it should be given through the medium of a general Act which is of universal application. The experience I have had of local authorities, and the experience which probably every hon. Member has had is that when money has to he spent it is spent by the local authority without any regard to the money that is available.

Mr. J. P. MORRIS: The hon. and learned Member has referred to the expense that will be entailed if this Bill is passed with the Clause as it stands. 1 have the authority of the Town Clerk of Salford for stating that the cost, so far as the City of Salford is concerned, will not be more than £50, and will represent only the printing of the by-law.

Mr. LYONS: I am very much indebted to my hon. Friend for that interpolation. It comes at an extremely odd juncture from one who has been so assiduous, and rightly assiduous, in this House in getting for his borough a grant from national
funds because the people of Salford are not in a position to meet their responsibilities, possibly through their own lack of good management. I should like to know how the Town Clerk can carry out for £50 the supervision which he has to carry out under this Clause. When the Town Clerk says it means merely the printing of the by-law he is talking rubbish.

Mr. THORNE: So are you. You do not know what you are talking about.

Mr. LYONS: If this Bill is to have any effect there will be a. complete department of the local authority set up to consider, inspect and supervise all proposed advertisements. There will be an official with a staff, and local authorities do not hesitate to have a staff of good size, because it is paid for by the ratepayers, who have little control over the engagements. This staff will consider every advertisement that is booked to the Council, and will say whether in its opinion the advertisement comes within the Clause of the Bill. It is idle to say that the total cost will be only £50 a year. Mere will be a new department set up, at a most inopportune time, in a place which is not fitted to take on any new obligations of this nature and to compete unfairly with various trade interests.
I would say at once that the Town Clerk of the borough which I in conjunction with two others have the honour to represent, has sent no notification to me. It is perfectly monstrous that outside town clerks or anyone else should send circularised messages of instruction to Members of this House, and try to interfere with them in the proper exercise of the authority with which they are invested. It is a very different thing when a local trader does it. I have had communications from traders who are ratepayers in my city. They say, "We are billposters, we are printers, and we realise that if this Clause is passed you will put on to our trade a fetter which it ought not to have."
If we give any local authority the power to regulate or to stop certain advertisements in that authority's area we (hall diminish the trade carried on in that area. It would have been more to the advantage of Salford if it had done something to increase the spending power of the people in that borough instead of
trying to reduce the earnings of people in the various trades that will be embraced by this particular Clause. Can it be said that there is any need at all for legislation of this nature, in view of the Advertisement Regulation Act of 1907 and subsequent legislation? If the amenities of the borough are to be interfered with, there is ample power in the legislation that exists. There is no need for the despotic power that is sought by Salford. Like the hon. Member for South Croydon, I have seen Salford at various times and from various angles. It would be a good thing if a great deal of Salford were covered up. Some of the posters that are published to-day, which are things of beauty, would hide from the public gaze a lot of Salford. I have seen Salford at its best and at its worst.
On this matter of public control by local authorities without any review, do hon. Members realise that if this Clause goes through, the political or other bias of a local authority can absolutely and unfairly prevent any advertising matter that it is wished to prohibit? You might get a council in Salford so thoroughly opposed to organised or collective buying and selling that it would stop altogether any placard or advertisement of the Co-operative Wholesale Society. Why should it have that power? You might get a local authority so composed that it would say, "We shall sallow cooperative societies and no-one else to advertise." Great expense is borne by ratepayers up and down the country because of the work of the local authorities and their departments. The time is coming when there will have to be a curtailment of many of those departments. It is not on the social services that attacks will have to be made, but on things of this kind, which are totally unnecessary to the health and welfare of the public. A Clause of this kind would give to an already overburdened local authority further work.
With an active and alert Member in this House—as we all recognise the hon. Member for North Salford (Mr. J. P. Morris) to be—they have demanded a share of £500,000 from those areas where the local authorities conduct themselves properly in order to meet expenditure which they are at present unable to meet, at such a state of insolvency have they arrived. With the extraordinary object of being first in the country in regard
to this matter, the borough of Salford now asks this House to give it power to prevent the covering up by advertisements of things which, as I have said, would be better covered. I hope that the House will give a. majority for this Amendment. I hope that we shall in passing this Bill—which contains many proposals for the benefit of the people of Salford and for the better management of the affairs of that borough—strike out this drastic Clause which would for the first time give a local authority a right of this kind without any review.

Major HILLS: I have been listening to a great deal of argument with which I disagree profoundly, but I must intervene on that point. I have read Clause 71 and when the hon. and learned Member says that there is no review and that it will be open to the Corporation to prohibit any form of advertisement they choose, he must have omitted to read Sub-section (3) which provides that a by-law made under the Section shall not have effect until confirmed by the Secretary of State, and that the Secretary of State shall give 30 days' notice for the hearing of objections. He may also order a local inquiry.

Mr. LYONS: My right hon. and gallant Friend has rightly called attention to a, matter which which I must deal, and I hope I have not given the impression that I was trying to keep back anything which might put a different complexion on the matter. But as I understand this Clause, while it is true that the local authority will have to submit to the Home Office and the Home Office will have to approve or disapprove of the principle of anything that is done under the Clause, the actual details of its application will be in the unfettered hands of the local authority. That was the point which I desired to make at the inception of my remarks, and I do not withdraw anything which I have said. The details of application will be for the exclusive consideration of the local authority, and there is no right under this Clause, as there is in other legislation of this kind, to go to a local court and ask for a decision upon any action taken by the council. I hope the House will authorise the deletion of Clause 71. In my opinion it deals with a matter which ought not to be made a, subject of local legislation.

8.20 p.m.

Lieut.-Commander ASTBURY: For 50 minutes we have listened to dissertations against the retention of this Clause, dissertations on the position of distressed areas, dissertations on the possibilities of action according to the different complexion of different authorities, and dissertations on the possibility that if this Clause is passed it will cost the country £250,000. [HON. MEMBERS: "£500,000!"] I am sorry if I understated the case of the opponents of the Clause in that respect. I propose not to waste the time of the House by predictions of all sorts of things that may happen but simply to apply myself to this Clause as it is. It is just as well for the House to know first of all what has happened to this Bill since its introduction before a Select Committee of another place and of this House. No petition whatever was put in against this Clause on Second Reading. No petition was put in when the Bill came before the Committee.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: On a point of Order. There was a petition against this Clause. I forget the name of the Society which petitioned.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain Bourne): That may be a reason for interrupting, but it is not a point of Order.

Mr. WILLIAMS: May I be permitted, as a matter of explanation, to state that I have here two pages which are filled with an account of the appearance of petitioners before the Committee, and my hon. Friend, who was Chairman of the Committee and who is present, will bear me out when I say that there was a petition.

Lieut.-Commander ASTBURY: I may be mistaken and, if I am, I willingly give way to the hon. Member. But the Bill was introduced in December, 1932, and the widest publicity was given to it, and no objection was taken to it until, as my hon. Friend says, a petition was pm. in when it came before the Committee. I have always understood that the practice with regard to these Private Bills was to send them before a Private Bill Committee of the Lords and Commons where argument by counsel is heard on both sides and witnesses are called. Those Committees have the advantage of hearing the full arguments on each side. Then
they come to their decision. If it is to become the recognised rule in this House that Members can get up on Third Reading and destroy all the work of such a Committee, and reverse its decision, then it would appear that there is no need for anybody to put in a petition against a Bill. There will be no need to go to the cost. An objector can simply get hon. Members to move against the Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr. WISE: Why have we a Report stage at all?

Lieut.-Commander ASTBURY: I am not suggesting that the action of my hon. Friends is not right. I am drawing my own conclusion in saying that if when a Bill has been examined in Committee it can be thrown out on Third Reading, that will do away with the need for any objector to petition against any Bill at all. Instead of going to the expense of petitioning, objectors can get Members of Parliament to move the rejection of the Bill on Third Reading. It is just as well to note the decision to which the Committee came in the case of this Bill. These are the words of the Chairman.
It may be that failure to amplify the decision of the Committee on Friday, may have left some doubt as to precisely what the Committee had in mind. I have to say that when the Chairman used the word regulating 'the Committee intended that to mean really the wider connotation of restriction and prevention and, after consideration, we think the new Clause as drafted by the promotor's Counsel should be adopted.
I mention that because a question might arise later on about the word "regulation." It has been asked, Why should Salford ask for these special powers, seeing that they have the same powers as anybody else? Nothing of the sort. We have in Salford, being a congested area, no Town Planning Act in operation, and therefore all the restrictions under the Town Planning Act to which my hon. Friend referred in his opening speech cannot apply to Salford. Then it was said that the council will be made a dictator, and it was said by one hon. Member that there would be no check on them, but it is clearly stated in the Bill that before a single by-law can be passed it has to be submitted to the Home Office, and if the Home Office, after holding an inquiry and hearing all the objections to the by-law, find that it is not reasonable, they can refuse to allow it to be
brought into operation. I maintain that that is an even stronger restriction than the Clause that the Liverpool Corporation got, under which there is an appeal to a court of summary jurisdiction. That Liverpool Clause was inserted in this Bill in the first place, but the Committee thought they would not approve of it and said that they would give us leave to apply this power through by-laws.
I have been in Salford perhaps a little longer than some of my hon. Friends who claim to know it very well. I have been on the outskirts of Salford all my life, and I have represented Salford in this House for 15 years. I would therefore like to tell some of my hon. Friends that they are really quite mistaken when they refer, as the last speaker did, to Salford as a place containing a good many parts that ought to be blotted out and covered with advertisements. It is the bill posters themselves in Salford who have made most of the places there an eyesore. The chief opposition to the Bill comes from the bill posters. The chief bill posting firm in Manchester controls most of the bill posting stations in Salford, but, not content with that, they want to post their bills on every gable-end and on the front of every cottage in the poorer parts of Salford. I say that the poor people in those districts have as much right to protection and to have a pleasurable outlook on life as we have in the better districts. I have had many complaints brought to me in Salford, and—

Mr. LYONS: Would not that very protection be given by the Act that I have spoken about, the Advertisement Regulation Act of 1925?

Lieut.-Commander ASTBURY: I was saying that for years these poor people have complained to me that what little outlook they have has been spoiled by these hideous advertisements.

Mr. LEVY rose—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: We have already had a very long speech from the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams), and a number of Members want to speak, so that I think we shall get on better without these interruptions.

Lieut.-Commander ASTBURY: With regard to the point that has been made that we shall be damaging the trade and
commerce of the country, I have been a business man all my life, and I have had to rely on advertisements as much as anybody else, but the type of advertisements that they want to post in all these back streets in. Salford is not the type of advertisements that would be worth a halfpenny to any business man or commercial man in the City of Salford. I am not going to make any charge against the bill posting company in the way that my hon. Friend made a charge against the town clerk. I will never bring a charge against a public official or anyone else who is not in this House to defend himself and answer the charge. I consider that sort of charge extremely cheap and extremely unfair. We are told that Salford have brought this on themselves by refusing to allow people to put up advertisements, but in answer to that I can say that only four applications have been turned down.
I realise, however, that on a Bill like this it is no good bringing in these extraneous matters and predicting this and that. I only wish to make the point, first of all, that the chief opposition has come from the bill posting companies in this country and the Federation of British Industries. There were three particular Clauses in the Bill, and the federation were called into consultation with the corporation. On the two Clauses relating to warehousing, the corporation met the federation and arranged for an agreement, and the federation never mentioned this first Clause at all until the last moment. Probably, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon said, they only got to know about this a week ago and that is why he brought this up on the Third Reading.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I took no action of any kind at the request of the Federation of British Industries.

Lieut.-Commander ASTBURY: I did not say the hon. Member did. All that I said was that the federation had come in at the last moment, as my hon. Friend did, as he told us, only a week ago. We have had two Committees, in the House of Lords and here, we have had counsel, and we have had witnesses called before those Committees, and on that evidence they have given their opinion that this is necessary for Salford and that Salford is entitled to obtain this by-law. I
therefore ask the House to reject the Amendment.

8.32 p.m.

Mr. J. P. MORRIS: As one of the representatives of the City of Salford, I hope I may claim the indulgence and the sympathy of the House in the position in which I find myself in having to combat the eloquence and knowledge of the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams). I am not a lawyer, and I cannot help confessing that the presenting of this case on behalf of the Corporation of Salford in this House would be better done in the hands of some forensic warrior. I do not know what connection or affinity exists between South Croydon and the City of Salford, or why that hon. Member has taken upon himself the responsibility of putting down the Amendments which stand in his name. I sincerely hope that he has not done that because I refused an invitation to the Croydon Gasworks last Monday. I have never been to Croydon, but if the beauty of Croydon and the efficiency of its gasworks are on the same high plane as the Parliamentary skill of the representative for South Croydon, then in truth I can say that on some future date I have a pleasure in store for me.
The Clause to which objection is taken enables the Corporation to make by-laws for the purpose of regulating, restricting, and preventing the exhibition of advertisements. The Bill, as originally deposited, contained a Clause making it unlawful to erect, exhibit, fix, maintain, retain, or continue any advertisement upon any land or building unless such land or building was licensed by the Corporation. There was a right of appeal against the refusal of a licence to a court of summary jurisdiction and from that court to quarter sessions. The Bill originated in the House of Lords and was referred to a Committee of that House presided over by Lord Redesdale. The British Poster Advertising Association opposed the Bill and appeared by counsel. After a full discussion and evidence, the Clause was allowed by the Committee with an Amendment postponing its operation for a period of four years. There was no further opposition to the Bill. The Bill was then introduced into the House of Commons on 22nd June last, and the time for petitioning against the Bill expired on 3rd July. The British Poster Advertising
Association again petitioned against the Bill, but again there was no other opposition.
The Bill was then referred to a Committee of this House. The Committee devoted two days to this particular Clause, and after hearing counsel and evidence, the Chairman announced that, while the Committee were not disposed to grant the corporation the Clause which appeared in the Bill, they were prepared to give the corporation further powers of dealing with advertisements by empowering them to make by-laws. The case for the corporation in each Committee of the two Houses was that the existing legislation contained in the Advertisements Regulation Acts, 1907 and 1925, and also in the Town and Country Planning Act, 1932, was not sufficient, in view of the peculiar circumstances of Salford, to enable the corporation to deal with the indiscriminate use of land and buildings for advertising purposes which has taken place in the past year. The Committees of both Houses were satisfied that this was so. I have already stated that the Committee of the House of Commons announced that, instead of granting the Clause which was included in the Bill, they were prepared to give the corporation powers to make, by-laws dealing with the matter, and the corporation were asked to prepare a new Clause and bring it before the Committee.
The corporation, in preparing the new Clause, followed the Advertisements Regulation Acts, 1907 and 1925. They submitted to the petitioners against the Bill a Clause which enabled the corporation to make by-laws for regulating, restricting and preventing the exhibition of advertisements. The petitioners objected to the Clause, and alleged that the corporation had gone beyond the decision of the Committee. That decision was announced by the Chairman in the following terms:
I have to announce that the Committee have decided not to grant Clause 68, but we are willing to accept a Clause conferring power to make by-laws regulating the placing of advertisements on buildings and walls, either generally or within such areas as are prescribed by the by-laws.
The corporation, in preparing the Clause, took the view that it was the obvious intention of the Committee to extend the by-law powers, but as the Chairman used
only the word "regulating," the petitioners said that that was the only word which should be included in the Clause, and that the Committee's decision should be followed strictly. I submit that if the Clause is restricted to a power enabling the corporation to make by-laws for the purpose of regulating advertisements only, it will be of no value at all to the corporation. The words in the Advertisements Regulation Acts are "regulating, restricting and preventing," and it would not be a difficult matter to satisfy a court that it was the obvious intention of Parliament not to give the corporation any power to restrict or prevent because of the different language of the two Statutes. Moreover, it has already been decided by the Privy Council, on an appeal from the Supreme Court of Canada, that a power to make by-laws to regulate and govern does not empower a local authority to prohibit, and that in fact a power to regulate and govern implies the continued existence of that which is to be regulated or governed.
It therefore follows that if the word "regulating" only is used in the Clause, the corporation will not be able to say that a particular building or part of the town shall not be used for advertising, but they will merely have the right to deal with the manner in which advertisements are to be exhibited and that is of no use to them. As the corporation and the petitioners could not agree on this Clause, it was submitted to the committee. After hearing counsel on both sides and a representative from the Home Office, the Committee, which on this occasion was presided over by my hon. Friend the Member for East Rhondda (Mr. Mainwaring) in the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Holderness (Mr. Savery), approved the Clause submitted by the corporation, and the chairman said:
It may be that failure to amplify the decision of the committee on Friday may have left some element of doubt as to precisely what the committee had in mind. I have to say that when the chairman used the word regulating 'the committee intended that to mean really the wider connotation of restriction and prevention and, after consideration, we think the new clause as drafted by the promoters' counsel should be adopted.

Mr. WALLHEAD: Did it receive the approval of the representative of the Home Office?

Mr. MORRIS: Yes, that is so. The representative of the Home Office did not raise any objection at the time to the new clause. The Parliamentary agents to the Salford Corporation were Messrs. Dyson Bell and Company, and the senior partner of that firm subsequently interviewed the chairman of the committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Holderness, who was unavoidably prevented from attending when the committee gave their decision. My hon. Friend gave the assurance to the senior partner to the Parliamentary agents that, in his opinion, when he used the word "regulating," he used it in the very widest sense, meaning it to give the corporation full power to deal with the question of advertising.

Mr. HANNON: From what is the hon. Member quoting? Where does he find the statement of my hon. Friend the Member for Holderness. Is he quoting from the record of the proceedings upstairs?

Mr. MORRIS: I am basing my remarks on information supplied to me by the town clerk of Salford.

Mr. HANNON: Then I must really ask you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, whether the hon. Gentleman is entitled to give to the House ex parte statements made by one of the promoters of this Bill and saddling it upon my hon. Friend the Member for Holderness?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think it is not infrequent for hon. Members to present ex parte statements. The hon. Member for Holderness is present, and no doubt he will give his own version.

Mr. MORRIS: Had the corporation followed what the petitioners suggest, the exact decision of the Committee, there would not have been any possibility showing the exceptions outlined in the Clause. It will be observed that the Acts of 1907 and 1925 are Advertisement Regulation Acts, but both Acts provide not only for regulation, but also for the restriction and the preventing of advertisements. This Bill was deposited in December last, and notices of its provisions were advertised in the" London Gazette," the "Manchester Guardian" and other newspapers in November and December of that year. Among the provisions of this Bill were two Clauses, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for West
Salford (Lieut.-Commander Astbury) has stated, relating to the overloading of warehouse floors, and a deputation from the Federation of British Industries waited on the corporation to discuss those Clauses. The corporation met the wishes of the Federation of British Industries, and amended the Clauses; but I want to make it clear that that deputation made no reference at, all to the advertising Clause, and it was also elicited that there had been no opposition from the local chambers of commerce and chambers of trade.
But what happened? A month after the Bill had been passed by the House of Lords Committee the corporation received a letter from the Manchester Chamber of Trade protesting against the advertising Clause, and at the head of the notepaper appeared, "President: Alderman J. Crookes Grime, O.B.E., J.P." This particular gentleman is the managing director of the Manchester Billposting Company, and it is said, has interests in billposting companies in and around Manchester and Salford. He is a prominent member of the council and is a past president of the British Poster Advertising Association, and gave evidence on their behalf before the Committee. Following the receipt of that letter from the Manchester Chamber of Trade other letters protesting against the Clause were received by the corporation.

Mr. HANNON: I am so sorry to interrupt, but does the hon. Member suggest that this distinguished alderman of the Manchester Corporation has done anything that is not consistent with his public duty? Alderman Grime has been discharging his duties as a citizen of Manchester.

Mr. MORRIS: I do not blame Alderman Grime for discharging his duty, but the opposition to this Clause is inspired by this particular gentleman who is head of the Manchester Billposting Company.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I had not heard of Alderman Grime till this evening, when somebody introduced me to him in the Lobby outside. He has not inspired me.

Mr. THORNE: He has been lobbying.

Mr. MORRIS: As I stated, further communications were received by the Corporation of Salford, including some from the Manchester Chamber of Commerce,
The Master Signmakers Association of Lancashire, Cheshire and London, the Advertising Association of London, the Federation of British Industries, the National Union of Manufacturers, the Manchester Publicity Association, the Manchester, Salford and Counties Property Owners' and Ratepayers' Association, and the British Federation of Master Printers. But it is a remarkable fact that although the Bill was deposited in December, 1932, and wide publicity was given to its provisions, not one of the above bodies petitioned against the Bill until the first letter of protest had been received from the association of which Mr. Grime was president. I want to point out that apart from the exemptions which the Clause provides any by-law made by Corporation is subject to the approval of the Secretary of State, who is required, before confirming it, to consider objections which may be addressed to him by any persons affected or likely to be affected thereby. The Corporation are bound to give public notice of any by-laws they propose to make, and if objections are made the Secretary of State is empowered to hold an inquiry. The Secretary of State is not at all likely to approve any by-laws which would be unreasonable, or which would in any way hamper trade or industry. It has been decided on many occasions that a by-law must be reasonable, and that it would be open at any time to anybody to challenge a by-law on the ground of its unreasonableness.
That is the history of the passage of this Bill through the Committees of both Houses up to its present stage. I intend very briefly to advance the humane considerations which have prompted the Corporation of Salford to seek the powers they ask for in this Bill. Whether Salford adjoins Manchester or Manchester adjoins Salford I do not know, but at any rate they are side by side. Salford has a population of 223,000, and is supported by an area containing 5,203 acres, and a point I now wish to make is that the city of Salford represents one of the densest of communities in this country. The density of population of Salford is 43 to the acre, whereas in Sheffield it is only 16. In Salford there are crowded together in small streets a very large number of persons living in houses the annual value of which is between £9 and
£12 per annum. That gives an idea of the comparatively humble type of house in which the great majority of the people have to live. The city of Salford is a remnant, if I may conveniently call it so, of the industrial revolution.
The point of principle which, on behalf of the Corporation of Salford, I desire to put before this House is that it is their right to take such reasonable steps as are necessary to protect the few remaining amenities of the people whose lot it is to live in those small houses in those humble streets. As regards the regulation of advertisements, and in so far as the protection of amenities has been the concern of the legislature, the people who live in the country are in a most privileged position. They obtain reasonable protection, I will not say from desecration, but at any rate from the annoyance through the display of advertisements. It has been suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon that people in the humble streets of Salford are not entitled to protection at all in respect of their amenities, because they have no amenities either to protect or to preserve; but if it is their misfortune to have to live in those humble streets that is no reason why billposters should be at liberty to do what they please and be allowed to display whatever kind of advertisements they wish to. I claim on behalf of the people of Salford some right to equality of treatment in the matter of being safeguarded and protected against the destruction of amenities, such as is meted out to people living in other parts of the country.
It has been suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon that the existing law is adequate and that the authority are not entitled to further protection. That is not the case, as I will endeavour to prove. In 1907, the Advertisements Regulation Act was passed as a general Act. Section 2 of that Act states that any local authority may make by-laws, first for the regulation and control of hoardings and similar structures used for the purpose of advertising when they exceed 12 feet in height, and secondly for regulating, restricting or preventing the exhibition of advertisements in other places in such a manner or by such a means as to affect injuriously the amenities of a public park
or pleasure promenade, or to disfigure the natural beauty of the landscape. It will be observed that there are no regulations which would control a hoarding up to 12 feet, and that the Act only provides for a public park, a pleasure promenade or the natural beauty of the landscape. I have as yet failed to find any landscape in Salford, and I have certainly not discovered much natural beauty; nor is there such a thing as a pleasure promenade. There is nothing in the Act of 1907 which affords any protection for the amenities of the streets in which the vast bulk of the people of Salford have to live.
The next Act was one passed in 1925 and similarly called the Advertisements Regulation Act. It amplified the powers given to local authorities by the earlier Act of 1907. Let me read Section 1 of that Act, which is the pertinent Section:
The powers of a local authority … shall include powers to make by-laws for regulating, restricting or preventing within their district or any part thereof the exhibition of advertisements so as to disfigure or injuriously affect—

(a) the view of rural scenery from a highway or railway, or from any public place or water; or
(b) the amenities of any village within the district of a rural district council; or
(c) the amenities of any historic or public building or monument or of any place frequented by the public solely on account of its beauty or historic interest."
Paragraph (a) does not apply to Salford, because certainly there is no rural scenery; (b) does not apply to Salford because Salford is not in the area of a rural district council, and (c) does not apply, because there are no historic buildings or monuments in Salford frequented by the people on account of their beauty or historic interest. Therefore, it is plain to see that under the Act of 1925 nothing could be done to protect the amenities of the people living in Salford.
I will now come to the next and final Act which is supposed to give adequate protection to Salford, namely, the Town and Country Planning Act, 1932. I think that I shall be able to prove that there is nothing in that Act which enables a local authority like that of Salford to preserve the amenities of the streets of a developed part of a town. Section 47 is that which deals with the control of advertisements and it reads as follows:
Where it appears to the responsible authority that an advertisement displayed or a hoarding set up in the area to which the scheme applies seriously injures the amenity of land specified in the scheme as land to be protected under this Act in respect of advertisements, the authority may serve in the prescribed manner upon the owner of the advertisement or hoarding a notice requiring him to remove it within such period, not being less than twenty-eight days from the date of service of the notice, as may be specified therein, and where any such notice is served a copy thereof shall be served in the prescribed manner upon the owner and occupier of the land on which the advertisement or hoarding is displayed or set up.
It will be observed that the condition precedent to the local authority of the area having any powers at all for the regulation of advertisements is that there is a scheme in existence which applies to that area. It is impossible to have a scheme of town-planning under Section 6 of the Town and Country Planning Act in Salford, because a scheme depends upon three conditions. One is that public improvements are likely to be made or other developments are likely to take place. I can assure the House that such a thing is not possible in Salford. The second condition is that the land already built upon comprises buildings or other objects of architectural, historic or artistic interest. Whatever interest the houses in those streets have for the persons who live in them, it cannot be said that the streets comprise buildings or other objects of architectural, historic or artistic interest. The third condition is that the land is so situate that the general object of the scheme would be better secured by its inclusion. I can promise hon. Members that there is no land available in Salford for a scheme of that kind. Therefore, I claim that I have made it perfectly clear that under none of the general Acts of 1907, 1925 or 1932 can anything be done by by-laws in respect of the regulation of advertisements in the streets of Salford.
I have here a series of photographs typifying the advertisements to which objection is made and which the Corporation of Salford seek to control. I feel convinced that, if hon. Members saw these photographs, they would not hesitate for a moment in deciding exactly how to vote on this Clause. I ask any hon. Member what he would think if, on looking through his bedroom window in
the morning, he saw an advertisement plastered on the walls and gables of houses opposite. How would they like to see an advertisement saying, "Buy the Sunday Dispatch. Randolph Churchill tells Members of Parliament where to get off," or "If I were Prime Minister," by Randolph Churchill? Think of the effect on the minds of the people of such advertisements as appear in these photographs.
The issue before the House at the moment is: Shall the bill-posters be allowed, subject to no control or restriction, to plaster bills and advertisements upon the ends and gables of houses and in other places? On the other hand, shall they be subject to a reasonable control in respect of so doing? Such control would not remain finally in the hands of the Corporation, but would form the subject of adjudication by an independent tribunal, the court of petty sessions, from which there lies an appeal to the quarter sessions. I hope that I have convinced the House that the restriction in Clause 71, about any decision to which the corporation may come, provides sufficient protection for the legitimate and reasonable exercise of the power of displaying advertisements, and, if I have done so, I hope that this House will reject in no uncertain manner the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for South Croydon and his colleagues.

9.5 p.m.

Mr. SAVERY: I hope that it may not be inappropriate if, in as few words as possible, I speak in opposition to this Amendment, because I was called upon to preside over the earlier meetings of the Select Committee which had to consider the Salford Corporation Bill. In that capacity I was empowered to make a statement from the Chair which has called for the Clause in question. In that statement no attempt was made to draft a Clause; the purpose of the words used was rather to indicate a direction in which it was hoped that a Clause agreed upon by both sides might be drawn up and submitted to the Committee. The agreement that we hoped for was not arrived at, and subsequently the Committee, after most careful consideration, unanimously decided to accept the Clause which was submitted by the promoters of the Bill.
It would be an astute person, and a still more sagacious Committee, that could guarantee in such matters to satisfy both contending parties, and it is quite natural and intelligible that the course which the Committee took has been a disappointment to the petitioners against the Bill. Their criticism, or criticism from any other source, might well disclose opportunities for altering the phraseology, or even modifying the effect, of a, Clause; but I would submit most earnestly that the disappointment of the petitioners, or even the resentment of the opponents of the Bill, cannot possibly afford sufficient ground for setting aside the considered opinion of the Committee and reversing their unanimous decision.
The issue arising from an Amendment of this sort appears to me to resolve itself into this plain question: Have we or have we not faith in our Parliamentary methods? On this occasion you have a Select Committee drawn from Members of this House. They have sat and deliberated under procedure which has been perfectly accurate and correct. They have heard evidence on both sides; they have taken advantage of the expert advice which is always available to members of such a Committee; and then, in the exercise of their unquestioned powers, they have come to a, unanimous decision on this Clause. Surely, in such a ease, the position of the Committee with regard to this Clause is unassailable, and it would be purely vexatious ruthlessly to challenge their conclusion. Therefore, with great respect but with unwavering confidence, I would ask the House to reject this Amendment and to uphold the action of their Committee.

9.9 p.m.

Major ASTOR: Sharing the desire of the hon. Member for North Salford (Mr. J. P. Morris), and other hon. Members, for short speeches, I wish briefly to oppose the special powers that this Bill would confer upon Salford in regard to advertisements. Clause 71 would seem to suggest that advertising, at any rate by poster, is an evil, and an unnecessary evil, which should be prevented, but many who are in close touch with advertising regard it as an effective and indispensable aid to marketing and selling, and, consequently, to the stimulating and sustaining of trade. We claim that it discharges an increasingly im-
portant economic function in the modern world, and that, indeed, mass production and mass distribution would be virtually impossible without it.
Posters are not always decorative, but, at any rate, great efforts have been made, and not unsuccessfully, to raise their artistic standard. The advertiser more and more makes use of the skill of the pictorial artist. Some disfigurements, such as railways, tunnels and pylons, may not be susceptible to improvement from an artistic point of view, but there is good reason to believe that the future will see a continuing improvement in the matter of the poster. Those associations which are opposing this Bill, like the Advertising Association and the Poster Advertising Association, do not, I am sure, in any way resent any effort to preserve the natural and artistic duties of the countryside and its buildings. They, too, may have these things at heart, and certainly they are alive to the desirability, in their own interests, of preventing offences against good taste on the part of their Members. The up-to-date advertiser seeks the good will of the public, and, surely, it would be bad business for him to court its hostility by exhibiting eyesores.
Many of us, realising the extent of the service that advertisers render to trade, have been greatly concerned by this Bill, for it threatens to do a serious injury to a business which gives considerable employment itself, and which directly assists in maintaining employment in a huge number of industries and businesses. Is so drastic a step necessary? Parliament in the past has not been unmindful of the amenities of the country; it has considered the matter from a national point of view. By the Advertisements Regulation Acts and by the Town and Country Planning Act it has introduced numerous provisions to regulate the intrusion of hoardings and posters—provisions to protect places and objects of beauty from disfigurement. We who are opposing this Clause hold that the existing law gives adequate powers to those local authorities who choose to exercise them, and, in view of the association of advertising with trade activities, any proposals for granting further powers should be closely scrutinised, but from a national point of view.
I do not suggest that Salford is not alive to the part which advertising plays in modern distribution, Lilt this Bill would permit those whose objection to advertising may not be balanced by their appreciation of its value to trade an industry to exercise what might well be a paralysing influence on a very important, and, indeed vital, service. In this instance Salford seeks exceptional powers, but, if its amenities and beauties are not adequately protected by the existing law, are other places similarly placed as regards the Town and Country Planning Act to be exposed to the treat of disfigurement? If there is a real need for further legislation, surely it is for us to proceed by general rule, and not by local exception. If there is to be one law in one place and another law in another place, it is bound to be unfair to some localities, and it can only confuse and hamper what I have no hesitation in calling a service to the community. The Bill seeks to take it much further than Parliament has gone when it has considered the matter. If there is really need for further powers to protect the countryside, we should consider the matter in the interests of all districts and not only of one. If there is no need for further powers, I hope the House will prevent any unnecessary interference with a vital service whose practical purpose it is to help to convey the products of our factories to the homes of the people.

9.16 p.m.

Sir WALTER GREAVES-LORD: I have never been so perfectly convinced until to-night by my hon. Friends the Members for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) and North Salford (Mr. P. Morris) of the absolute necessity of limiting the duration of speeches. They have been very strong advocates in that cause and certainly they must have convinced a great many people to-night. But I rise, not for the purpose of congratulating them upon that feat, but for she purpose of appealing to the promoters of the Bill to take what I conceive to be a reasonable course. Do not let anyone think that I am tarnished with the atmosphere of Manchester, because I am not, but I do from time to time have to walk through parts of Salford, and I sympathise entirely with Salford in its desire to regulate, to restrict, and to prevent, if necessary, the exhibition of a great many
posters which at present destroy the amenities of a number of mean streets. Some people think a mean street has no amenities, but I see no reason at all why, because a man lives in a poor house in a poor street, he should have his view defaced by a number of posters, and it seems to me that it is just as much necessary in a mean street to protect the inhabitants of that street from the unlimited exhibition of posters as it is even in the countryside, and I sympathise entirely with those who want to have that power. But I cannot see any reason why those who want that power should want it for purely arbitrary reasons, and that is the difficulty of this Bill. It provides that:
for the purpose of preserving for the enjoyment of the public or residents the amenities of any street, the Corporation may make by-laws for regulating, restricting, or preventing the exhibition of advertisements on any building, wall, or other structure not being a hoarding within the City as may be specified in the bylaws.
Surely that is sufficient power, and I think that power, properly exercised, can be wielded by the corporation in the best interests of the town, and under that power they can do a great deal of good. But why they should want an arbitrary power to control the situation when they can do it all under those words I do not understand. I appeal to the promoters to try to rid themselves of that desire to have a purely arbitrary and unreasonable power. If they will do that, I for one will certainly advocate that the Clause should be allowed to pass, but, while those words are in it, they cannot grumble in the least against the House for opposing it. They are simply saying that the corporation, for a mere whim, may say, "We will not have more than a thousand posters in Salford," and then, when they get to 1,001, the by-law comes into operation. It is a. perfectly silly power. On the other hand, if you have the power to make by-laws regulating, restricting or preventing the exhibition of advertisements, you have everything that is required. Salford is a great municipality and the city is well kept and well looked after. No one can pass through its streets without realising that. At the same time, it is a great pity that, in the desire to get arbitrary powers, it should throw away the opportunity that it has of getting a reasonable power to regulate, restrict or prevent the exhibi-
tion of posters. If they want that power, I for one will do all I can to help them to get it. They can get it by accepting the second Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for South Croydon, and, if they will accept that condition, I think there will be very little opposition to the Clause.

Mr. BAILEY: The hon. and learned Gentleman talks about the power of the Salford Corporation being arbitrary. Has he taken notice of Sub-section (3) of the Clause, which states that the Secretary of State must confirm any such Order?

Sir W. GREAVES-LORD: The fact that the Secretary of State must confirm the by-law in no way affects the point that I am putting. The power of the Secretary of State to confirm or otherwise may be very seriously restricted by putting an arbitrary power into a by-law which merely limits numbers, because you take away from him a great deal of the discretion that he might otherwise have. If you are going to have the Secretary of State confirm or reject a by-law, he must have some opportunity for exercising discretion. If you are going to have merely an arbitrary power to limit the number, you might just as well not have the Secretary of State in at all. I think it would be far better to deal with this on reasonable grounds than on purely arbitrary grounds.

9.23 p.m.

The UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Douglas Hacking): I should like to support the appeal that my hon. and learned Friend has made. He has submitted in a very clear fashion the position which the Home Office take up in respect of the Bill. I do not want to deal with the history of the Bill nor with what happened in the Committee, of which I was not a, Member. We have had the Chairman of the Committee making a statement with regard to what happened upstairs, but, with all respect to him, I would say that this House really has every right to criticise a Bill after it has passed through Committee. Even if the Clauses were perfectly normal and common Clauses, we should still retain that right. Here I think our right is, if anything, increased because a new principle is involved in Clause 71. I hope my hon. Friend will not consider that we have in any way attempted to slight the Com-
mittee or to slight him as Chairman of the Committee when we decide to discuss this matter and come to a decision for ourselves. I, at any rate, have not been influenced by any bill-posting company or any association in the declaration that I am going to make. This Clause, as drafted, allows extremely wide powers of making by-laws. It could be used for objects entirely different from the amenities. If the Clause is allowed to go through as drafted, it might seriously embarrass legitimate business being carried on by advertisers.
I am not speaking on behalf of advertising interests. I would like to put, quite briefly, the view of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. As representing the Home Office and as the authority who would be expected to confirm these by-laws, his point of view is that his position would be extremely difficult because, as at present drafted, the Clause does not indicate the considerations to be borne in mind by the confirming authority. If the House will look once more at the Clause as drafted, it will be seen that no reasons need be given by the corporation, who have simply to say that they desire to limit the number or to control the situation of advertisements, irrespectively altogether of the amenities of the district. On behalf of my right hon. Friend, I wish to say that this is much too wide a power, and would make our administration at the Home Office extremely difficult. Quite frankly, my right hon. Friend does not like the bylaw procedure at all in respect of a matter of this kind. The question as to whether advertisements are prohibited in a particular area is much more suitable for the decision on the spot by persons familiar with local conditions. Any decision which may be made should be made on the spot, and be subject to the right of appeal to a court—perhaps the court of quarter sessions. But my right hon. Friend is prepared to accept this by-law principle in this instance on account of the fact that this Bill is sound in other respects. We do not like the Clause as at present drafted and I would reiterate the appeal made by the hon. and learned Member for Norwood (Sir W. Greaves Lord), for unless the Amendment to delete the words
or of limiting the number or controlling the situation of advertisements
is agreed to by the promoters and by the House in general, I am reluctantly compelled to ask that Clause 71 should disappear from the Bill.

9.28 p.m.

Mr. FLEMING: I would not have intervened in this Debate at all had it not been that I happened to hear the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) speaking of Salford as a place where he used to go some years since. I happen to be in a similar position in regard to Salford. I can say quite frankly that I have no interest whatever in bill-posting or anything else in connection with Salford, but for some 12 years after the War I had the misfortune to have to earn my livelihood mainly in Salford, and I know the district thoroughly—as well as anybody in this House. I also happen to know the district represented by the hon. Member for South Croydon, and I can assure him that if he will compare the two districts—and he must know them both, seeing that he has visited them—he will agree with me that in the comparison Salford suffers intensely. When I listened to the hon. and gallant Member for Dover (Major Astor)—not having the honour of knowing him—I was wondering whether there was by any chance an advertisement on the gable end of his house. In Salford I have many friends who earn their living in that city—friends that I made during the War when they were soldiers with me in France. I have been one of the lucky ones, and have been able to escape having to live near Salford. They are still there, and it is on their behalf that I have been induced to raise my voice this evening in this House to try, no matter how the Clause may eventually be framed, to get something for these people who are forced to live in that city.
I know from experience that the advertisements displayed there do not improve Salford one jot. When I asked a question as to whether there happened to be an advertisement on the gable end of a certain hon. Member's house, I was thinking of some of those advertisements I have seen in Salford on the gable ends opposite to the houses of friends of mine When my friends open their doors, they see an advertisement advising them to use certain powders which will kill all
kinds of insects. I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Dover that that is a very sensible advertisement to have opposite their doors, for most likely they need those powders in such houses. But I fail to understand how such advertisements in such a place add to the amenities of that street where those men are compelled to live. Therefore, I shall do what I possibly can to help forward this Clause, even if it is amended according to the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Norwood (Sir W. Greaves-Lord), because I really think this question of poster advertisements must be tackled not only in Salford, but in every large industrial area of population. The hon. Member for South Croydon objected to town clerks writing in respect of this Bill. Though I did not get a telegram, I did get a letter from the town clerk of Manchester. I would ask whether it was irregular, as suggested by the hon. and learned Member, who adduced no proof that there was any irregularity.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I do not want to interrupt—

Mr. FLEMING: No, you have interrupted enough. Those in my profession have been taught to regard all things as being rightly done by men in such a position until they are proved otherwise, and that is my position in regard to the town clerk of Manchester. Be that as it may, I see in the letter sent to me something more than the hon. Member for South Croydon sees. I see a desire also in the city, of which I represent a part, to regulate their advertisements. I do not think that anyone in this House would cavil against such a desire. I gather, from listening to the arguments, that the only objection to the Clause is the method by which it is proposed to bring it about. I wish it to be clearly understood that I, personally, although I have no interest whatever in poster advertising, have no objection, as the hon. and gallant Member for Dover put it, to the proper use of such methods of advertising. I am all in favour of it, but the method as developed in the city of Salford, of which I had experience for 12 years, is not the right method from the point of view of those people who are condemned to live in that city, and it is on their behalf, and theirs only, that I have risen to speak.

9.36 p.m.

Mr. WISE: The hon. and learned Member for Withington (Mr. Fleming) has lifted his voice very worthily in defence of the people of Salford and of their intense dislike of advertisements. I think that had he, possibly, in the course of his advocacy considered the proceedings in Committee when the Bill was going through he would have found that the people of Salford were, in fact, not so agitated about advertisements in that constituency as he might have suspected. There was only one witness called before the Committee to testify to the views of the borough of Salford, and he was the Mayor. In the course of his evidence he managed, with a great deal of brain-racking, to adduce two instances out of the population who objected to the advertisements which were displayed upon their walls—two out of a population, I believe, of 223,000. It was a very excellent percentage of objectors, clearly proving, as the hon. and learned Member says, that the population of Salford have an intense hatred of any form of advertising on their walls or gable ends. On the other hand, possibly, the feelings of the other 222,998 might be considered before this popular appeal is put to the House.
The hon. Members for Salford put the ease for their borough as well as it could be put on this occasion but there are one or two things where, I think, they trespassed somewhat on the intelligence and the tolerance of this House. When the hon. and gallant Member for Salford, West (Lieut.-Commander Astbury), in the course of his speech, said that the only opposition to this Bill came from some organisation of billposters, it seemed to me that he implied that Members of the House who were opposing the Bill were, in fact, in some way concerned with billposting. I should like to take rather strong exception to that. It is a form of argument which is too often bandied about in this House that such-and-such a Member is here to represent some particular interest, and although occasionally, but very occasionally, I have heard hon. Gentlemen opposite say that they, in fact, represented some union or some other interest, I do not think that they have meant it. This House as a whole has the old-fashioned idea that it represents its constituencies, and I take very strong exception to the
remarks of the hon. and gallant Member suggesting that hon. Members of this House represent particular vested interests.
The opposition to this Bill is not a question of any particular interest but one of general principle as to whether or not extremely extensive powers are to be given to local authorities. I suggest that there is no precedent really before the House for these powers to be given. The House listened with great respect and appreciation to the hon. Member for Holderness (Mr. Savery) when he explained the position of the committee. But, as the right hon. Gentleman told us, even Private Bill Committees can be mistaken, and it is because they can be mistaken that there is such a thing as the Report stage in this House—another fact to which the hon. and gallant Member for West Salford took exception. I think the House will realise that the committee in this case have made a very honest mistake, but definitely a mistake, because after striking out the clause, which they considered to be too drastic, they inserted another clause, thinking that they had reached a reasonable compromise, but it is a clause which is, in fact, far more drastic than the one they struck out.
I should like to refer to some of the remarks of the hon. Member for North Salford (Mr. J. P. Morris), who said that a great deal of evidence was brought before the committee as to the necessity for the corporation of Salford obtaining these powers, but, as I said before, that "great deal of evidence" was, in fact, his worship the Mayor, a very worthy gentleman I have no doubt—I have not the privilege of knowing him—but, although embodying in himself the civic spirit of Salford, he did not produce, legally speaking, "a great deal of evidence." The hon. Member for North Salford went on to quote certain legal decisions in support of his argument that the corporation should have those powers, but, unfortunately, he omitted to tell the House that the law he was quoting was Canadian, and not English. I have a great respect for Canadian law, but, even although an assiduous reader of the "Daily Express," I cannot suggest, or expect this House to suggest, that we should accept Canadian law as the basis for our decisions here.
The House is being asked to extend to the borough of Salford a power which is not, in fact, held in the same way by any other borough in this country, but certain boroughs have got certain laws for the regulation of advertisements, and when the House realises which boroughs they are, they will see that there are extra qualifications which do not apply in the same case to the borough of Salford. The cities of Edinburgh and Leith, which, I believe, are now combined, have certain powers, not nearly as drastic as those asked for in the Bill. But Edinburgh is an acknowledged beauty spot, and, although Salford is a fine borough, I think that even its hon. Members, worthily though they represent it, will not argue that it is an acknowledged beauty spot. Other towns which have extra powers are Dover, Newcastle, Leeds and Brighton. My hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) has already dealt with the case of Liverpool, but in respect of these other four towns, there are special circumstances which do not arise in this particular case. There is no popular feeling in the borough of Salford for the suppression of these advertisements other than the evidence given by the Mayor—the only witness, and, incidentally, one of the few people in Salford who is exempt from the provisions of the Bill in his own business, because he owns a cinematograph theatre which he advertises on his walls, and which advertisements do not come within the purview of this Clause. During the Committee proceedings many photographs were submitted to the Committee as to the undesirability of a particular type of advertisement, and the most undesirable were two posters exhibited in front of his worship's own cinema. Therefore, I do not think that that evidence can be treated as really conclusive. Many of the people living in these houses in Salford might well believe that if they received a little money for having an advertisement displayed on the walls of their houses, it would be a welcome addition to their weekly income. I am told that Salford is purely a working-class borough. The working classes in these days are not well provided in regard to their weekly incomes. Why should any possible addition to that weekly income be at the arbitrary disposal of the borough council? If the owner of one of
these cottages should like to strike a bargain with an advertising company to exhibit posters, then in the interests of the liberty of the subject and in the interests of their own economics they should have the power to do so, but if this Clause goes through they will not have that power. Therefore I appeal to the House to reject the Clause. Every opportunity has been given to the promoters of the Bill to reach a reasonable compromise, but every effort to reach a reasonable compromise has been rigorously rejected. Therefore the House has no alternative but to reject the Clause in full.

9.47 p.m.

Mr. CHRISTIE: The House has been engaged for a very considerable time in considering this Clause. While I am inclined to support the Motion of the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams), I feel that the time will not have been wasted if the Debate calls attention to the present position of the local legislation groups who consider these Measures. Before the change was made by the last Socialist Government the method of carrying on local legislation was that these new Clauses and these new precedents were considered by the joint Local Legislation Committee. The two Local Legislation Committees at that time were presided over by Sir Thomas Robinson and Sir Walter Raine, who were undoubtedly the finest chairmen of those committees that we have had for many years, and I cannot help thinking that a very bad backward step was taken in dividing the work of those committees among the present multiple units. If the old system had been carried on and this Clause had been submitted to the entire Joint Committee, with the advantage of the two chairmen being present, it would never have been put in the Bill in its present form. I am now given to understand, and I am thankful to say, that the protagonists are inclined to come to an agreement. Therefore, I will not trouble the House further.

9.48 p.m.

Mr. MAINWARING: I am authorised, on behalf of the promoters, to accept the Amendment: In page 58, lines 23 and 24, to leave out the words:
or of limiting the number or controlling the situation of advertisements.
I think it necessary to make one point clear. The petitioners against this Bill, and this section of the Bill in particular, have stated emphatically their view that Salford has no amenities to protect. They have concentrated the whole of their evidence and their case upon those lines. In accepting this Amendment now, it must be clearly understood that the promoters are not accepting the point of view put forward by the petitioners on those lines, but on the lines put forward by the hon. and learned Member for Norwood (Sir W. Greaves-Lord) that the meanest of the streets of Salford have amenities to be protected, in case of need. We think the matter should be considered on those lines.
The opposition to-night has been largely initiated by the hon. Member for South Croydon, and there has been a great deal of kite-flying in connection with this particular Clause. One would imagine that the City Council of Salford are for some unknown reason going to become mad at once, because they have some special powers granted to them. It would be well if some reason were given why the Salford City Council or any other local authority should suddenly become mad in the application of powers granted to them. We have had objections raised to town clerks circularising Members of this House, and there has been resentment because from some words used this evening it is implied that hon. Members have a personal interest in some business or other. There is never a week that passes in the lives of Members of this House that they are not directly or indirectly approached by some sort of interest. If there be any implication at all it is the implication that we all suffer in accepting these approaches, directly or indirectly. If the House wishes to claim a virtue on these lines I think the sooner steps are taken to prohibit approaches, direct or indirect, inside or outside this House, the better. The promoters are. now prepared to accept the Amendment to which I have referred and I hope that, the good sense of the House will be fully-satisfied with that acceptance, in response to the appeal made by the Under-Secretary of state for the Home Department.

9.54 p.m.

Captain WATERHOUSE: If I understood the hon. Member aright, his statement is that his friends, who are the promoters of the Bill, have agreed to,
accept the second Amendment which stands in the name of the hon. Member for South Croydon, namely, to leave out the words:
or of limiting the number or controlling the situation of advertisements.
It is rather hard to decide who is able to speak for the promoters because we have several voices, but if that is the agreement and they will accept that Amendment then I think my hon. Friend will be willing to withdraw his opposition.

Sir W. GREAVES-LORD: I have had some conversation with the promoters and they assure me that if this is agreed to they will be quite willing to accept that Amendment without a Division. I think that is a very satisfactory conclusion to the discussion.

Lieut.-Commander ASTBURY: On behalf of the promoters I agree to accept the Amendment to leave out the words:
or of limiting the number or controlling the situation of advertisements.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: In the circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment, but I desire to make one minor qualification when we come to the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I beg to move, in page 58, lines 23 and 24, to leave out the words, "or of limiting the number or controlling the situation of advertisements."
The qualification 1 wish to make is this. I recognise the peculiar situation of Salford, because of the Act passed in 1899, and I am willing to agree to this concession in respect of Salford because of the fact that they have certain special powers, but I do not regard it as a precedent for any other municipality which may come to Parliament and ask for similar powers. I reserve to myself the full right to oppose any Bill in future which may seek to extend to other municipalities the powers which are proposed to be given to Salford to-night.

Captain WATERHOUSE: I beg to second the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Standing Orders 240 and 262 be
suspended, and that the Bill be now read the Third time."—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Dr. O'DONOVAN: While I heartily agree to the Third Reading of the Bill I should like to draw the attention of the promoters to Section 92, which introduces an absolutely new principle into the control of the practice of medicine. Any doctor in Salford in future, who wishes to treat his patients by the modern means of ultra-violet light therapy, must now produce every year a certificate of his competence signed by two medical practitioners. If the policy be extended it will produce the extraordinary position by which the Salford Corporation holds itself entitled to reconsider the work of the General Medical Council and to assume the responsibilities of the Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons who have trained and certified men as fit to practise medicine generally. Should a registered practitioner go to Salford and adopt this ordinary, simple method of modern treatment he must yearly produce a certificate of his competence and of the fitness of his premises. This is so extraordinary, and novel, so far-reaching and improper, that I think the promoters should take notice of it before the Bill is finally passed.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time. and pased, with Amendments.

AGRICULTURAL MARKETING ACTS, 1931 AND 1933.

10 p.m.

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Major Elliot): I beg to move,
That the Scheme under the Agricultural Marketing Acts, 1931 and 1933, for regulating the marketing of milk, a draft of which was presented to this House on the 20th day of July, 1933, be approved.
The milk marketing scheme is undoubtedly of great importance in the size of the subject which it covers, in the importance of the product in which it deals, in the attempt which is being made to organise this great section of British agriculture, and last, but not least, in the Parliamentary technique which has been evolved to deal with this and kindred problems. Let me take the last point first. The new technique which has been worked out to deal with these problems is our justification for asking
the House to pass this stage of the Measure, at a somewhat later hour than I would have wished this important subject to be discussed. The volume of work thrown upon Parliament to-day is so great that it is essential that some scheme of devolution should be worked out, and in a way not uncharacteristic of our British constitutional development a departure along this line is found in the procedure the last stage of which is the presentation to Parliament to-night. This scheme, to which the House is asked to give its approval, has been the subject of many months of careful and detailed inquiry. It starts on the 18th April, 1932, when the Milk Reorganisation Commission under the Chairmanship of the hon. Member for Altrincham (Sir E. Grigg) was appointed.
That Commission examined the problem with the greatest skill, care and thoroughness, and presented its report on the 27th January last. The report, which affects producers of milk, was accepted in principle by the farmers' representatives, and on the 18th March they submitted to me their draft milk scheme, which was based on the scheme prepared by the Milk Commission, although it differed from it in certain details. On the 20th March there was a public notice of the submission of the scheme and those who were interested had notice of the period within which to make objections and representations. That period went on until the 2nd day in May. In the meantime, on the 12th of April, the representatives of the milk distributing and manufacturing organisations put before me their views with regard to the arrangements for price negotiations under the scheme. Subsequently I had discussions with their leading representatives, which culminated in an agreement in principle to a proposal which I made to them on the 12th May. This proposal was also agreed to by the National Farmers' Union.
On 11th May the statutory three weeks' notice of the holding of a public inquiry was published. The inquiry opened on 6th June and was continued until 29th June. After that, as the Statute requires, the chairman of this inquiry considered the objections and reported thereon to myself. The scheme was amended where necessary. The modifications were accepted by the promoters. The scheme was
printed and laid before the House on 20th July. Therefore, the House will see that this scheme has been the subject, first, of the most exhaustive expert inquiry, and that all sorts of evidence was heard in private; secondly, the scheme was submitted and advertised and opportunity was given for all relevant observations and objections to be taken to the scheme; thirdly, a report upon this was considered by the Minister; and now the scheme itself is presented to the House.
It will be seen that the great mass of inquiry, of examination and of emendation which is represented by the last stages of procedure in this House, has been carried out to a large extent outside this House. Yet the scheme itself is not a scheme submitted to an outside authority; it is submitted to the Minister, and the Minister presents it to each House of Parliament, taking full responsibility for it. After that the scheme goes to the producers for a poll. Every milk producer in the country is to be asked, "Here is the scheme. Do you accept it or reject it?" That is an experiment in constitutional technique which merits attention from the point of view of Parliamentary usage and of that continuing reform of our Constitution which is the true glory of Parliament, and by which Parliament, keeping its hand on the essentials, can afford to have a great mass of details considered and reported upon by those who have more leisure than this House or the other House, with such a mighty weight of national and imperial problems to bear.
The scheme covers 90 paragraphs, and I make no excuse for that. It is a long document. It is not possible to carry through the reorganisation of an industry so intricate and vast as the milk industry in a few general principles. The producers are to be asked to vote for this scheme, if this House so sanctions. I understand that the other place has today already given its sanction. It is only fair and right that the details of the scheme as well as the general principles should be laid before the producers. The general principle of the scheme is that the milk industry is in a top-heavy and dangerous position because of the great difference in price paid for milk for manufacture and milk for liquid consumption. The organisation here suggested is an organis-
ation by which that great difference can be levelled up.
The principle upon which the scheme will operate is that of a series of regional pools, 11 m number. The, regional committees, elected by the registered producers in the regions, are to advise a central board as to the working of the scheme in the regions. The registered producers, have, of course, as in the case of the bacon scheme, a certain number of statutory exemptions. Those who have not more than four milk cows, provided they do not sell milk by retail, are exempt. Those who do not carry on the business of selling milk otherwise than to their servants for domestic consumption, are also exempt. All other milk producers are registered; registration is a condition precedent to the sale of milk, although registration cannot be denied to any producer who desires to register. Within each of these 11 regions the producers will receive the same price for their milk irrespective of whether the milk is sold for liquid consumption or for manufacture. Premiums received by producers for milk above the ordinary standard of quality or for special services, will be passed on direct to the producers concerned.
Therefore it will be seen that the principle of the Bill is the principle of the registered producer selling his milk and receiving an equal price for his milk irrespective of the use to which it is to be put. Between these regions there will be an inter-regional compensation, because in certain areas where there is clearly a very large amount of milk going into manufacture it would be impossible to get a price which would be equitable for the producers in that region as against the producers in an area where a very large quantity is sold for liquid consumption.
It may be said, why have any of these arrangements at all? It was brought out by the great purchasers of milk that unless some scheme of reorganisation could be worked out and adopted, the surplus of liquid milk for manufacture, welling up from beneath the whole of this structure, would flood the market, and the price for liquid milk would be forced down to unremunerative levels, would wreck the chance of the producer of milk receiving even a replacement value for his milk, and certainly absolutely destroy every chance of his making
any profit on the sale of his milk. I think that in the numerous examinations of this problem which we have had in the House, we have all come to accept the position, tacitly and indeed overtly, that that would be a disaster, not merely for the producer but for the consumer. The destruction of the remunerative price level is like the stopping of a clock or the running out of water which is not being replaced, and the remunerative price level, the replacement of the wastage which is inherent in the delivery of the product, is just as essential a factor in the consumer eventually enjoying that product, as is the actual delivery of the product to him, in this case as it may be, in the jug, the can or the churn.
If therefore we are agreed that the remunerative price level is threatened, as I say, with the crash of the liquid milk superstructure into the manufacturing milk basement, then we are driven back upon the problem of how to deal with that situation. The principle adopted for dealing with it is a principle of 11 regional pools, within which a levy is collected on the milk and that levy is used to level up the price within that region. That, of course, affects those who sell milk either to wholesalers or to their own clients. There is the producer retailer. It may be said that the producer retailer is short-circuited by this process and should be left outside but that is not so. The case of the producer retailer has been carefully examined by the Grigg Commission and he also is to be brought within the scope of the scheme. Why? Because he—or she—will equally suffer by the crash of the price of liquid milk. A flood of liquid milk such as might occur from the weight switching over from, let us say Cheshire cheese, might and would destroy the price level for the producer retailer as certainly as if the producer retailer were faced with the competition of a dozen other producer retailers suddenly springing up to serve the same area. Therefore, it is to the advantage of the producer retailer that he or she should come within the scheme also.
It seems to me, however, that, while it is desirable to give the House an admittedly brief survey of the proposals in the scheme, what the House will more particularly desire to ask is: What of the public? After all, the final responsibility does not lie with this House but
with the producers. After this House has finished with the scheme it goes to the ballot of the producers and unless the producers accept it by a clear majority the scheme will not apply. Consequently the responsibility of this House is simply the responsibility of—I was going to say a grand jury, but I understand that some "sea change" has come over those ancient bodies—an assessing committee to see "Is this the sort of scheme that reasonably should be submitted to the producers," Then arises the question of the public and the House will rightly demand that it should know what are the protections for the public.
The protection for the public is twofold. First there is the position of the distributors who here are guardians of the public interest to the extent that a distributor naturally does not desire to see an unreasonably high price exacted for his product lest it may cause a falling-off of sales and the ruin of his industry at second-hand. That might hold, although we might say the producers with a statutory monopoly and the distributors ancilliary to this statutory monopoly could get together into a tight ring for the purpose of exploiting the public, and the long distance advantage which they should look to on getting the cheap product sold at prices which will enable a reasonable consumption to take place may not lie over, may not exceed, the immediate chance of profit which they may get by screwing up the price, collecting unreasonable sums of money, and taking, as many of us have done in our own lives, a short view, to our disadvantage in the long run. That may be left to correct itself in many walks of life, but here you are dealing with milk, which is more than an ordinary foodstuff, which is more than an ordinary commodity, which is an essential in sickness and in health, an essential for the old and for the young.
I believe that these boards will operate their great powers with discretion and justice, but these new developments may not lead to our hopes being fulfilled, and therefore you will find in this scheme, which the House of Commons is being asked to pass, paragraph 60, which is the safety line from which, I think, we may safely allow the scheme to proceed, since it retains under the review of the Minister, and therefore under the review of
this House, the essential point, the price of this invaluable commodity, and retains it, as I shall show, for a period which, I think, will give a fair trial to the novel experiment to which we are asking the House and the country to consent.
When I was working upon this with the representatives, not merely of the producers, but of the distributors, and not merely of what one might call the capitalist distributors, such as United Dairies and the great companies, but the distributors represented in this House by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Rollox (Mr. Leonard), the co-operative societies, I arranged with them an interchange of letters upon which I made a statement to the House at the time. If it would not bring me under the ban of those who consider that Ministers should never speak at any length in this House —[HoN. MEMBERS: "Go on !"]—I should briefly summarise the agreement which I reached with the distributors, since it is perhaps important that this should occur again in the OFFICIAL REPORT, where it is easily consulted by all who are interested. I said then:
I have conferred with representatives of milk producers, manufacturers, and distributors, including the consumers' co-operative movement, in regard to price-fixing arrangements under the projected Milk Marketing Scheme, and I am glad to say that both sides have arranged to consider a procedure on the basis of (what was then) Clause 11 of the Agricultural Marketing Bill as at present before the House. This procedure would ensure that prices and matters affecting prices should be discussed by a joint committee, with equal voting representation, of the Milk Marketing Board on the one hand and of distributors, including manufacturers, on the other, together with three independent members who will take part in the deliberations from the start. An undertaking has been given by the interests concerned that, should agreement be reached, they will use their powers or influence as the case may be to secure the observance of the decisions of this Committee in regard to prices during the first year of the operation of the scheme. I have been given to understand that it would be the desire of the parties that I should nominate the independent members. Thus, the structural objectives of the Milk Commission"—
The House may remember that the suggested structure was three representatives of the producers, three representatives of the distributors, and three representatives of the Minister—
the structural objectives of the Milk Commission would, in the main, be attained without recourse to special legislation.
Then follows my appreciation of the good sense of both parties in coming to that decision. In paragraph 60 will be seen a fulfilment of that undertaking. It states:
During a period of 12 calendar months from the end of the suspensory period, the Board shall not (a) make any determination as to the price at, below, or above which, any milk may be sold … without previously consulting the persons who are for the time being members of any statutory board representing dairymen, or, if there is no such board, such other persons as the Board think best qualified to express the views of purchasers of milk, by wholesale, together with not more than three persons to be appointed by the Minister for the purpose.
The reference to any statutory board representing the dairymen is put in because there was a reference to that in the Grigg Commission's Report, but it would demand a reorganisation which the distributing trade has not contemplated, let alone carried into effect. Therefore, for the time being, we must be content, with there being no statutory board, with representatives of the purchasers by wholesale. Although they are not defined by Statute, they come under the old description of a gentleman: it is impossible to define them, but we can always tell one when we see one. The essential point of this joint committee is to be seen in paragraph 60 (2):
if, after such consultation, the Board are unable to agree with the statutory board or the purchasers' representatives, as the case may be, as to the said price, the appointed persons shall fix the price and shall give notice in writing thereof to the Board.
The purchaser's representatives are the representatives appointed for the purpose by the Minister, which brings them under the review of this House. Paragraph 60 (3) says:
After receipt of any such notice, the Board shall not determine, or prescribe as a term of any contract for the sale of any milk by wholesale, a price other than the price so notified to them.
That, it seems to me, is our justification for saying that Parliament may safely part with this scheme. The only complaint which is made against it is made by the Association of Distributors presided over, somewhat to my surprise, by
my hon. Friend the senior Member for Dundee (Mr. Dingle Foot). The difficulty that they foresee is that the distributors are only protected for 12 months after the expiry of the suspensory period. I beg to submit to the House that this is really meeting our troubles more than half-way. This new experiment is to be brought into existence, has to be voted on by the producers, has then a run of 12 months in circumstances which none of us can foresee, and it will be subject all the time to the safety provisions that the public shall be protected, that if prices cannot be fixed they shall be fixed by representatives appointed by the Minister subject to the control of this House. I venture to say that in those circumstances it is rather hypercriticism if somebody says: "We are all right now, we are all right this year, we are all right until well into next year, but we quake with apprehension at the thought of what may happen at the end of 12 months plus a certain number of months."

Sir PERCY HARRIS: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say what kind of men he proposes to appoint to represent the public interests Are they to be experts or Government officials, or who?

Major ELLIOT: They will be persons, as near as I can get them, qualified for the duties which they will have to perform. Surely that is a discretion which must be left to the Minister who is making the appointments. It is not my desire to appoint experts, but to appoint men of common sense; but if there is brought to my notice an expert who is also provided with common sense I shall not debar him from membership because of his expert knowledge. The person or persons whom I shall put on will be selected with the object, first of all, of seeing that, if possible, the two sides, producers and distributors, do themselves determine upon a fair and just price, and if it is necessary for him or them to intervene then I hope they will intervene to the minimum possible extent; because I am certain that the danger in this experiment is that both sides should remain far apart, on opposite sides of the table, and leave the whole weight of the price-fixing to be done by the appointed representatives. That is a risk we have to take, and it is a risk which I am asking the House to take in order to obviate the
much greater risk that we might be accused of carelessness for the interests of the consumers in handing them over entirely to the mercy of the producers, possibly allied with, or possibly fighting against, the distributors.

Mr. HARCOURT JOHNSTONE: I am sorry to interrupt. I may be stupid, but I understand that all these precautions are only to be taken for the 12 months. At the end of the 12 months price fixing will fall entirely into the hands of the committee of producers, and the independent people appointed by the Minister and the committee appointed by the distributors will cease to function.

Major ELLIOT: How is anything sold just now? The price of everything is not submitted to this House. Producers settle the price at which they sell things.

Mr. JOHNSTONE: Then why the precaution for 12 months?

Major ELLIOT: The House knows, and I am sure my hon. Friend knows, that it is desirable that we should, when setting up a board which has statutory powers given to it by this House, see that though it has a giant's strength it does not use that strength like a giant. I believe it will not do so, but I believe also that in the long run it will be much the best thing that this House should not be dragged into the fixing of the prices of this or other commodities directly through its own nominees, because I can see that course fraught with danger to the time of this House and even to its reputation. I am taking a risk here, and I am asking the House to take a risk in entering this field of price fixing, but I am only taking this risk because we are dealing with a food which is so essential that any suspicion that this power was being unjustly used would destroy the chance of success of the scheme. That was indeed one of the strongest points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham, who was chairman of the Milk Commission.
The interests of the consumer will also be protected, and permanently protected, by the safeguards in the Act of 1931, which my hon. Friend took a great part in supporting during its passage through the House. The consumers' interest will be watched by the consumers' committee which is to be appointed by the Minister. That consumers' committee will, of
course, be appointed. Reports from the consumers' committee will be considered by the committee of investigation which will advise the Minister whether any action or omission by the board requires to be rectified. If anything is to be rectified, the Minister can either issue an Order directing the board to rectify the matter, or he can make an amendment of the scheme. The Minister can, if the power is badly used, revoke the scheme. There is discretionary power vested in the Minister to revoke a scheme, subject to the approval of Parliament, if he is of the opinion that the scheme is contrary to the public interest or to those of the consumers or the producers. There are special provisions with regard to Certified and Grade A (T.T.) milk producers, a small body that, for nine or ten years, have rendered conspicuous service in the interests of clean milk throughout the country, and in whom the Minister of Health has an especial interest.
The special case of these producers was discussed with the promoters, and they have given an assurance that they will undertake to move the board, when constituted, to exempt the sales of Certified and Grade A (T.T.) milks which are sold under those designations from Part VI of the Scheme, and they will undertake not to withdraw the exemption without the consent of the Government, unless a majority of the persons producing those milks desire that the exemption should be withdrawn. I have informed the promoters that I will be prepared to consider any representations which the board may make for the revocation of this exemption, should the market increase or should the exemption appear contrary to the interests of other registered producers.
This scheme is by far the largest that has ever been attempted in the way of reorganisation of the home market. The production of milk in England and Wales in 1930-3] amounted to over 1,200 million gallons. The sales off farms represented 949 million gallons, and the value of all milk and milk products sold off farms in England and Wales in the same year is estimated at about £55,000,000 sterling. That represents nearly 28 per cent. of the sales of agricultural produce. We should not be dealing with so vast a subject had it not been common ground that some form of
reorganisation would have to be attempted. Even at the public inquiry there was little opposition to the necessity for a scheme, and criticism was rather in the direction of securing amendments which would make the scheme more elastic and more workable. It may be that the House will desire further information, and, if so, I shall be willing to supply it. I have done my best to give information.

Mr. de ROTHSCHILD: May I ask the Minister a question on a minor point? Will this restrict the number of producers in the country, and will it be possible for the board to refuse an application to register any dairy farmer who has not been a dairy farmer in the past?

Major ELLIOT: The answer to both those questions is in the negative. It is a scheme under the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1931, and it will not restrict the number of producers in the country. Under the Act, any producer has the right to be registered as a producer—

Mr. de ROTHSCHILD: At any time?

Major ELLIOT: At any time. It is not within the power of the board to refuse his application. If there are other points on which the House requires information, I shall do my best to satisfy them. I should have wished that we could have had more time to discuss this matter. As I have said, from the fact that we have been able to reach so great a measure of agreement after a long process of investigation extending from the 18th April, 1932, almost till the present week, and the fact that from co-operative organisations such as my hon. Friend the Member for St. Rollox (Mr. Leonard) represents, from large-scale distributing organisations such as United Dairies and others, and from the many producers throughout the country, we have received expressions of their desire that we should press forward with this scheme, I think we may say that it is a scheme to which the House of Commons may safely give its blessing to-night.

Mr. RICHARD RUSSELL: May I ask the Minister one further question? What is the position of the farm cheese-maker under this scheme? Would he be good enough to add a word on that subject?

Major ELLIOT: Roughly speaking, if the milk producer sells to a cheese factory, he will get a price which has been negotiated; he is making a, sale of milk. If he is making cheese himself, then there is, so to speak, no sale of his milk. That, of course, makes a difficulty. It is believed that this difficulty will be got over by a sale between the producer and the board. The producer will sell his milk to the board, and will get the full price for it, and then, by a, paper transaction, so to speak, he will take it back again for cheese-snaking. The milk, of course, will not actually change hands, but by this process a sale, so to speak, will be effected. That, of course, would be a matter for the board to consider and decide; it will all have to be worked out by the board. What we can say just now is that the importance of cheese-making is certainly appreciated, and there is nothing in the scheme to prevent the board from making regulations for that special case. The actual illustration I have given is an illustration of a way in which that difficulty may be met, but, clearly, the fact that no sale can take place by a man to himself represents a difficulty in farm cheese-making which does hot arise in other branches of the industry. It is merely one example of the problems with which the board itself will have to deal, and, as I say, these problems of the industry will be best considered 'and determined by the industry, in the industry, working through the industry itself.

10.44 p.m.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: May I, first of all, congratulate the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, not only on having had the privilege of bringing this scheme before the House, but on having persuaded the diverse interests in this gigantic undertaking to allow the scheme to be prepared so that it could come before the House prior to its adjournment 1 I want to say, on behalf of the party for which I speak at the moment, that we welcome this scheme. We recognise it as a gigantic experiment. We appreciate that any new undertaking involving tens of thousands of producers and tens of thousands of retailers and, of course, affecting millions of consumers, will obviously bring along with it its own difficulties and its own problems. In the 12 months referred to by the right hon.
Gentleman as the experimental period I think we shall have to be generous enough to the board and optimistic enough to believe that the Minister will pay that minute attention to their activities and fulfil the desire of the hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway which we on these benches sought to introduce into the Bill when it was passing through the House. I refer, of course, to the consumers' safeguards.
I gladly welcome the scheme, and, with the Minister, I hope that the milk producers throughout the country will be much more unanimous than were the raspberry producers in Scotland when they had to ballot for their scheme a few days ago. It seems to me that the raspberry producers have got a good price for their produce this year, so they do not want a marketing scheme. If they fall on evil days next year and find that they are suffering from a surplus and the price descends, they will come to the House for artificial respiration, and I am not sure that they will not blame the Socialist party for their distress. This scheme, however, is one which gives unexampled powers to a few men, and we have to hope that, having reposed that power in them, it will be exercised in such a way that the producers of milk will not only learn the art of organisation and will benefit by a stabilised price for their product but will begin to appreciate that, after all, marketing and co-operation is the one and only means for prosperity to be restored to the agricultural industry.
The dangers foreseen by the senior Member for Dundee (Mr. Dingle Foot) may be very real. I have been reading a document to-day written by one who appears to know all there is to know about milk and much more, and I have read the criticisms of several experts, and I am not sure that they couple expert knowledge with common sense. However, some of their criticisms may be very real. Our point of view both on Second Reading, Committee and Report stage, was that the consumers' committee really ought to be set up very quickly, that they ought to report to the investigation committee and that the investigation committee ought to investigate whether the Minister wants them to or not. As the Bill stands, the investigation committee, even after a report from the consumers' committee, will only investigate if the Minister directs
them to. We will forgive the Minister's omission in that respect, because we feel that what was said from those benches in 1931 was really felt. We have the same feeling in 1933, and I rather envy the right hon. Gentleman the success which has attended his efforts so far.
There is one great danger with regard to this milk scheme and that is the producer retailer, who represents approximately 25 per cent. of the milk producers. The producer retailer will, I fear, become a danger when the ballot takes place. I hope every hon. Member will support the Minister in endeavouring to persuade producers, whether retailers of milk or not, that it is in the interests of every milk producer in the country that they should ballot in favour of this scheme. We have been told frequently that the one product on which agriculture could rely during the past nine years has been sugar beet, because they knew in advance the price they were likely to obtain. If the producers can know in advance, after the organisation is made more or less fool-proof and when all necessary consumers' safeguards have been applied, the price they are likely to obtain for their milk, I am sure it will be to the advantage of both the producer-retailer and the producer who is unable to retail his produce. Every hon. Member must know by now that the difficulty about the farmer in many cases is that, while he may be the best farmer in the world and an expert in the art of production, the individual farmer has no power to fix a price for his produce. In fact, if the average farmer attempted it, it would have about as much effect as it would if one man out of 750,000 miners came out on strike. It is the middleman, the merchant, who fixes the price, and if he fixes a price in time of glut or scarcity, it is always one which ensures to the middleman a profit, even if it may mean bankruptcy to the farmer-producer.
It is because of these difficulties, which are so well known, but which it has taken so many years to make so many people understand, that this marketing scheme has been made possible to-day. The senior Member for Dundee has expressed doubts about what may happen 12 months hence. I may express some doubts, but I am hoping that within 12 months, the scheme having been got under way, the Minister and the experts who guide and
advise him will observe very closely any defects which may be discovered in that period, and that these will be rectified, so that the producer will be ensured a stabilised price, and the consumer will have a guarantee that he will not be exploited. I heard of an instance this morning where an hotel in the Metropolitan district had entered into a contract to receive milk from certain producers at a certain price. By some curious mischance a telephone message was received by the proprietor asking, "What was the price at which we undertook to sell new milk during the coming winter?" When the manager replied that the figure was so much, the inquirer apologised because for the moment the figure had been forgotten. It turned out that on the morrow of the morning on which the contract had been, entered into, an alternative offer was made to supply milk to that hotel at 2d. per gallon less than the price they had actually undertaken to pay, and the people who had offered the milk at per gallon less were producers in Scotland represented by the hon. Gentleman. If my information is correct, it is to some extent, if not very largely, surplus milk, which does not command the English retail price. Scottish milk has been the bane of the life of the English producer of milk, but whether it be Scottish, Welsh or English, every producer is entitled to a fair and legitimate price. I saw the Secretary for Mines in his place a few moments ago, and I wish he were here now, for I want to tell him that, while he agreed with this scheme, we want him to agree to a more reasonable price for those who produce coal.
I want to conclude by complimenting the Minister, and all those who have been helping him in this work. We commend the schemes to the House. I join with the Minister in appealing to every hon. Member to make it their individual and collective duty to advise farmers to be much more sensible than the raspberry-growers of Scotland, for this is the ground floor of organisation which will ultimately restore prosperity to one section—a very large section—of agriculture. If the scheme can be made to succeed, just as the hop scheme has already been made to succeed, I think that there will be real hope for agriculture in this country, and the possibility will be
opened up for the hopes and expectations of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). Even though we may not restore 500,000 men to the land, at all events, I think that this will be the way which will ultimately lead to a return to agriculture.

10.56 p.m.

Sir EDWARD GRIGG: This scheme, though we are obliged to take it 60 late at night, is of vital importance to the greatest industry in this country and deals with a commodity which, as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman truly said, is something more than an ordinary food; it is the most important of our foods. I think that it is therefore due to the dignity of the House and to the importance of this question that we should not treat this Motion as of small account. In the first place, I want wholeheartedly to congratulate the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture upon the energy—I may say the passionate energy—combined with diplomacy and with skill, which has enabled him to bring this Motion to the House to-night. He has won golden opinions from farmers in this country, and he has not spared himself in doing so. Since I have had perhaps some special opportunity of realising the difficulties and the complexities of the task of dealing with the milk industry, I offer him the warmest congratulations from the bottom of my heart.
I should like to echo, too, what has just been said, and to express the most earnest hope that the producers of this country, when it comes to a poll next month or the month after, will vote for the scheme by the necessary two-thirds majority. I hope that nothing will prevent them from adopting this scheme. Although, in my opinion, it does not go far enough, it is the first foundation of the scheme that we ought to have, and it is essential that this foundation should be laid in the present year. I have expressed my gratitude to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman most sincerely, but I must go on to explain that my gratitude is of the old-fashioned, classical type. It consists not only of a grateful recognition of the benefits conferred by this scheme, which are very great, but it consists also, perhaps even in greater degree, of a lively expectation of benefits
still to come. I regard the scheme as an instalment only, and as an earnest of further measures, which, I hope and believe, will duly be passed in -Oafs House, and which, whatever the right hon. and gallant Gentleman may be able to say to-night, I hope he has in mind even at the present time.
There are two aspects of a great scheme like this. The right hon. Gentleman dealt principally with one of them—the marketing system which is to be introduced. That is an extremely important matter, but I do not wish tonight to say very much about it. Broadly speaking, the marketing policy laid down in this scheme is the marketing policy which the Commission recommended. It is different in some respects, and I think in some respects it is a very considerable improvement on what the Commission proposed. I certainly have no reservations about it except one, and that is that I think it is a pity that it has been laid down in such hard arid fast terms. It may be that a variation of this scheme will prove necessary at an early date. I am rather sorry that the pooling system was laid down in such absolute terms in the scheme, so that the variation which may prove to be essential will be very difficult to make without an amendment of the scheme. I hope that I am wrong in that respect, but I do think that the terms of the marketing scheme as laid down in the scheme are a good deal more absolute than those which the Commission recommended. That is however only one part of the scheme, and I do not wish to detain the House on it to-night.
I would prefer to deal with what is, from our point of view in this House, a more important side of the scheme, and that is the organisation that is being set up, the character of that organisation and the powers which are being given to it. That is a more important matter from the standpoint of Parliament, because the scheme itself may be left to the discretion of the organisation when it comes into being and the organisation will be far better fitted to deal with it than we are here. The organisation is very important, particularly in regard to a commodity like milk. That was recognised when the 1931 Act was passed. It was recognised that when a Reorganisation Commission came to be appointed to deal with the subject of
milk it would have to go into something more than the organisation of the producers. I have here the Orange Book on the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1931, which was published by the Ministry soon after that Act reached the Statute Book. It dealt not only with the other provisions of that Act but also with the duties that would fall to Reorganisation Commissions when they came to be appointed. This is what it said about milk:
It is obvious, for example, that a national milk scheme will require the cooperation of wholesale and retail distributors, including the consumers' co-operative movement, of creamery proprietors, and of manufacturers. Divergent interests may stand in the way of effective co-operation, and it would be the duty of the Commission, as a constructive body standing outside the ring, to investigate such difficulties as exist and to make suggestions for their removal.
After dealing with one or two specific points, it said:
Apart from these two specific instances, a commission may need to inquire further still into the processing and distributive industries and, in fact, to make suggestions for their reorganisation, with or without the aid of the Act, on lines complementary to the producers' organisation. Here, again, inquiries may not be complete without taking cognisance of the import situation.
The commission, of which I was chairman, took that advice and those observations very much to heart. It realised their importance and their wisdom more clearly with every week which it gave to its task, and it came at the end to recommend not only the organisation of the producer, but a complementary and parallel organisation of distributors and manufacturers. In doing so it was taking the same line as that which the House has already approved in regard to the pig industry, where not only are the producers organised, but the curers, too. But it went in some respects beyond the reorganisation proposals in the pig industry, because it dealt with the retail distributor and also proposed that the joint body to be set up should have three impartial members, one of whom should be chairman.
The commission made this recommendation because it believed that it was essential to the welfare of the industry, and particularly to the welfare of the producers, to secure the co-operative
development of the industry, under bodies representing all the interests engaged in it, independent of State control, but under impartial guidance and advice. That was the principle of the commission's recommendations. There were two things which in our belief were essential to the welfare of the industry, and more particularly to the welfare of producers. The first was to establish the principle of co-operation between all sections of the industry; that is vital and particularly vital to producers. We endeavoured to secure that by setting up a joint council in which all interests were represented and by giving that Council impartial guidance to harmonise differences. But equally important is it to the industry and to the producers to keep its hold of public good will. For many years the farmer has laboured without the good will of the great mass of the population. He has recovered that good will now, and it is essential that he should not in any way sacrifice it. In a period when we are trying to make prices rise, when we hope that prices will rise, it is important to interpose between the producers and consumers some impartial element which will explain and justify any steps which may be taken to make prices rise. The commission considered this to be of great importance. Towards that organisation this scheme is the first essential step.
So far as the organisation of the producers goes the scheme is excellent. It constitutes an extremely effective producers' board on the lines the Commission recommended, and it has added, either at the instance of the right hon. Gentleman or 00 a recommendation made in another place, two co-opted members, who will add strength to the body. Before I leave the organisation of the producers' board may I call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to what seems to me to be a discrepancy between two paragraphs in the scheme as published, and ask what is intended? In paragraph 8 it is laid down that there are to be five special members of the producers' board, of which three shall he elected and two co-opted. That, I think, was the agreement at which the House arrived when the Agricultural Marketing Act was passed. In paragraph 14, which deals with the replacement or re-election of the members of the producers' board it speaks
as if there were five elected members, not three, and ignores the existence of the co-opted members altogether. I should like to ask what is intended? Is it intended that the co-opted members shall terminate their term like the elected members by lot? It is a minor point but the position of these co-opted members is important, and I shall be glad of an answer on the point.
The scheme also provides fully for consultation with the distributors and manufacturers, and also for the appointment by the Minister of three impartial persons to be present at deliberations regarding prices, who are to intervene and fix prices if the interested parties cannot agree. That is a very valuable beginning, and I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on having got so large a measure of agreement to that course. But excellent as it is, it is only a first step. This is not really the co-operative organisation which the Commission had in mind, and I have one great fear about it. Its tendency is not to build up the principle of co-operation; its tendency, I fear, is rather to arm one party with greater strength as against the other. There is a suggestion of militancy in it, a, suggestion that, having made the conditions fairer as between the contending parties, they had better "go to it" and fight the whole question out again. I say here, with any influence I may possess with the producers, that I would beg them not to interpret the powers given to them in that sense. I hope they will interpret them in a totally different sense. Instead of thinking "Now we have got the powers we will try to keep this entirely in our own hands," I hope they will work for real co-operation, for that is their interest. Fighting on this matter is no good to a man who must have a monthly cheque for his milk. Whatever powers the State gives him, he will always get the worst of it. He must have co-operation, and must have it particularly because his interest lies in getting a fair share of the distributive margin. That is what the farmer has to look to more than anything else. There is a danger that he may think he is going to get a better price for himself by putting up the price to the consumer. The price of milk has remained almost stationary in this country and hardly fallen at all. The
putting up of the price would end only in the reduction of demand. I trust that the producers, having got these great powers, will use them for co-operation rather than for trying to force conditions and terms upon the other part of the industry, which must result in a rise of price.
There is another aspect of these powers which I suggest requires the attention of the House. There is not only the power of price fixing. There is also in this scheme a new power for which, so far as I know, there is no precedent. On the security which he will have by the fact that he controls the annual turnover of milk of £50,000,000 or £60,000,000, the producers' board can borrow money, and with that borrowed money and the trading powers which are received through the Act they can alter into competition with private enterprise in almost every form concerned with the distribution or manufacture or transport of milk. That, I think, is a dangerous power. I do not much mind the fact that it is unprecedented. I am one of those who are always calling for new action in what are, after all, unprecedented circumstances. I do not complain because the Minister has taken a novel and courageous course—not at all. All I say is that I trust the producers will recognise how enormous these powers are and how carefully they should be exercised from the start, more particularly because there is always a danger that if they are exercised unwisely, in the end it is not the consumers who will suffer, not the distributors, but the producers themselves.
There is one other element in the lively expectation of future benefits which constitutes a part of my gratitude to the Minister, which I would like to mention. I do not think any marketing scheme or any organisation is going to be adequate, in present circumstances, to keep up the price of milk. Two other things are essential. One of them is some further restriction of imports. From the point of view of the stock industry and of butter and cheese production, that is vital. I know that we can count on the right hon. Gentleman to do his utmost in that respect. If he does not attend to that matter, there is great danger that the pool price may fall to a level which as [he said, would not compensate the producer of really good milk. If that happens, the whole scheme will collapse.
The restriction of imports is vital and the scheme will be no good without it. There is another measure which I ask him to consider. Even if imports are restricted, as I hope they will he, something should also be done—and something can be done—to encourage the demand for milk. That can be done without great cost by the Government with the co-operation a the industry and with co-operation of other Departments with the right hon. Gentleman's Department. I believe that that also is vital to the success of the scheme.
To summarise, this scheme, excellent as it is, is an instalment only of what the industry will ultimately require. I hope the farmers themselves will assist the Minister to complete this organisation when they have had experience of its working over the next few months. The Minister can use his influence with them, but the initiative should come from them. There is no danger in my mind that the consumer will be sacrificed. The safeguards are adequate to prevent that. There is no danger that the distributor or the-manufacturer will be sacrificed. They will he able to look after themselves. The danger is that the farmer himself may, in the process of working out the scheme, sacrifice some measure of the good will which he at present possesses. From that we should endeavour to protect him. Against that we should advise him at all costs. I hope, too, that the right hon. Gentleman will take the measures which are complementary to this scheme and are necessary to make the scheme a success, namely, further restriction of imports and measures to extend the demand for milk, and thereby maintain an adequate pool price.

11.18 p.m.

Mr. LEONARD: I rise to put two questions to the Minister on this Order. Before doing so, I may remark that the statement of the hon. Member for Altrincham (Sir E. Grigg) makes it clear that the time allowed for this discussion is not adequate. The protests which we made in Committee as to the possibility of inadequate discussion of these Orders have been justified. The only other comment I wish to make is in regard to the question of goodwill which has been mentioned. The hope has been expressed that the grant of these powers to the
producers will be accompanied by the goodwill of the co-operative movement. I need only say that the co-operative organisation has in the past not only by words but by action helped considerably to bring some organisation into this industry. Appreciating the position in which we find ourselves, I want to ask the Minister a question on paragraph 60 which he described as the "safety line." The paragraph provides that the Board shall not make any determination as to price without previously consulting the persons who are for the time being members of any statutory board representing dairymen, or such persons as they think best qualified to express the views of purchasers. There is in this agreement ample justification in the words of the Committee themselves for the co-operative movement being recognised as it is here. I ask therefore, in appointing the panel representing the purchasers, what method will be taken to see that that panel is amply representative.
The other question is with regard to the date upon which the scheme will come into operation. I do not know if any pronouncement has been made on the matter, but I am informed that in the trade itself there are suggestions circulating that the scheme will likely come into operation some time in January, and if that be the case, I would like to be informed if any arrangements have been made to cover the interim period between now and then, because I am told that September especially is rather an important period with regard to contracts in this matter. We think it would be rather injudicious not to make any interim arrangements if that date for the commencement of the scheme should be January. I shall be grateful for answers to those two questions.

11.22 p.m.

Sir JOSEPH LAMB: I shall confine myself very briefly to expressing, as I believe is the wish of agriculturists generally, the thanks which they owe in the first place to the hon. Member for Altrincham (Sir E. Grigg) and his colleagues for the heavy work which they did in the production of the Report which he signed as Chairman, and also to the Minister and his staff for the work which they have done in bringing this scheme before the House. I said "agriculturists
generally," because whatever affects one section of agriculture must of necessity affect the whole, and very few people realise how many there are in the industry of agriculture who are actively engaged in milk production. Of the 120,000 members of the National Farmers Union, no fewer than 90,000 are actual milk producers, and I believe that among those who are not actually members the proportion is still higher.
The scheme itself has 95 paragraphs and the very fact of its having been necessary to produce so many, gives some indication of the magnitude of the subject with which they had to deal and the work involved in doing it. It is not only the scheme itself, but there is something much more important than the actual scheme, and that is the spirit in which the scheme is worked. I believe that agriculturists generally will be ready and willing to work this scheme in the right spirit, and I am confident too that they will do their utmost to see that the interests of those who are not actually in the scheme but are affected by the scheme—and who is not?—as consumers will be adequately and properly safeguarded. My own personal regret is that those who are producers of certified and T.T. milk are excluded from the scheme, and I think also that it would be much better if the scheme had applied to the whole of the British Isles instead of to England and Wales alone. I am confident that there will have to be, as the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) said, very close co-operation between the Scottish Board and the English Board if we are to have success, otherwise it will be found necessary to amalgamate them both.
The country generally has grown to a new sense of the importance of food production and of food production there is nothing so important as milk production. I feel sure that not only will agriculturists themselves live to see the time when the benefits of this scheme, or amendments of this scheme—because no scheme is absolutely perfect, and it may be necessary to make some slight amendments—but they will have to appreciate the work that has been done by the Minister and the others concerned. I believe that the country generally owes a great debt of gratitude to the National Farmers' Union. It has represented the farmer faithfully in this matter, and prior to the scheme
being brought out by them and presented to the Minister, they were the people who did so much to assist agriculture by the sale of milk under very difficult conditions. Milk is undoubtedly the one product which has sustained its advantages longer than any other section of agriculture, and that is entirely due to the efforts that were made by the National Farmers' Union to get collective sales on the part of the producers. While recognising the work which has been done by others, we ought to give a meed of praise to the members of the National Farmers' Union executive, particularly of the Milk Committee, for the work they have done to help the industry and to produce this scheme. There are a lot of other things I should like to have said, but I am confident that the House will not consider this to be the time. I will, therefore, simply express the thanks of the industry to those who have brought forward the scheme.

11.27 p.m.

Mr. MALLALIEU: I will follow the example of the hon. Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb) and confine my remarks to five minutes. I have observed during the short time I have been a Member of the House that hon. Members have paid a good deal of attention to the policy advocated at one time or another by hon. Members who sit on these Benches, and are apt to bring up those policies with somewhat disconcerting results for those hon. Members; but I am certain that the House to-night will not expect anyone from these benches to launch a wholehearted attack on any scheme which has for its objects ordered and up-to-date marketing such as this scheme is designed to achieve. The success of the working of the scheme will depend to an exceedingly large degree upon the good will of not only the producers, but of the distributors. I wish to say a word to the Minister on that point. Members will realise what a gigantic task it must be to undertake the distribution of milk in such a place as London, and I do not suppose the vast intricacies of this task are appreciated by the bucolic gentleman who produces the milk, whose business is not with the distribution. When the milk passes through the farm gate he is not particularly interested in what happens to it after that. At the same time they are absolutely dependent upon the
efficient working of the distributive machine.
It is with this thought alone in my mind that I am keen that there should be no ill-feeling on the part of anybody upon whose good will the success of the scheme may depend. The Minister has referred to paragraph 60 of the scheme, whereby the Board is empowered in effect to determine the price of milk. It seems to me that the distributors might have exceedingly useful knowledge and experience which they could bring to bear upon this determination, and it would be a great mistake to ignore that experience and knowledge. Paragraph 60 recognises the justice of the contention that the distributors should have their views heard, because, for 12 months at any rate, their views have to be beard. I confess I do not understand the explanation which the Minister gave why it is necessary at the end of 12 months to remove the voice which the dairymen have in fixing the price.
That voice can be exceedingly melodious on occasions as we know. They have the right to speak for 12 months, and it seems to me that no adequate reason has been given to explain why, after 12 months, they should not have that right. I know that there is a certain amount of uneasiness amongst distributors on this point. They feel that the fixing of prices may be of vast importance to themselves, and that after a certain number of months they may have no say in it, the price being decided by people whose interests are not theirs, and may be antagonistic to theirs if the persons fixing the prices take a short view. I am so keen that nobody whose co-operation is necessary to the scheme could feel aggrieved, and that the scheme should in consequence not work, that I feel the Minister might pay some further consideration to this point, and perhaps make some definite assertion that the dairymen will be consulted during the 12 months. He said they would be, but he has not detailed how they are to be consulted, or who among the dairymen are to be consulted. If be had given us some further elucidation it might remove certain suspicions which I believe exist. Further, I would like to know whether on the Market Supply Committee and the Milk Marketing Board there will be any representatives of the dairymen and if so how they are to be chosen. If he
would make some further statement on the matter it would set at rest suspicions which I know exist at present among certain dairymen—I dare say the Minister will suspect from what source my information comes—and in the end make for the smoother working of the scheme

11.32 p.m.

Sir WILLIAM WAYLAND: As a Jersey milk producer I wish to ask the Minister why, seeing that Grade A (T.T.) and Certified milk have been granted special privileges, Jersey milk is not to share in those privileges as regards receiving the higher price. If milk contains less than 3 per cent. of butter fat the producer is liable to prosecution. Jersey milk contains a higher percentage of butter fat, which is the most important constituent of milk, and therefore we ought to support the production of Jersey milk. It is well known that many farmers producing milk from certain grades of cows are compelled to purchase Jersey cows in order to avoid being prosecuted because the butter fat content of their milk is below the legal limit. The price of Jersey milk is higher than that of ordinary milk, because it is more valuable and is it fair, when consideration is being given to the production of Grade A milk and certified milk, which need contain only 3.1 per cent. of butter fat, that the same privileges are not extended to milk containing double that quantity of butter fat?

11.34 p.m.

Major ELLIOT: I must thank the House most cordially for the reception they have given to this Order and for the succinct and well informed discussion we have had. I am sure we shall all feel that as long as we can discuss a measure of this importance in this atmosphere that the House of Commons is indeed fulfilling the highest objects for which it was brought into existence. The difficulty of reviewing a scheme so vast in the short time at our disposal is pressing heavily upon me. I shall do my best to answer, as briefly as may be, simply the questions which have been put to me, and, if I do not dilate further, either upon the reception that the House has given to the scheme or upon the remarks that have been made about those who arc responsible
for it—I count myself as one in only a minor way—the House will understand that it is not for lack of gratitude but with a desire to consider the night's sleep.
I have been asked questions, in the first place, by the hon. Member for Altrincham (Sir E. Grigg) who spoke of the differences which he feared existed between paragraphs 8 and 14. Paragraph 8 fulfils the promised arrangement, which was come to as a result of discussions in another place, and the attention given to them here, namely, that there should be two members co-opted on to the Board. Paragraph 14 does not deal with the co-opted members; it simply deals with how the elected members are to be elected. 1 hope that my hon. Friend will see that co-opted members remain co-opted to the Board, and that Paragraph 14 provides the procedure of how the special members, who, he will remember, are to be elected to the Board, as and when they fall out—

Sir E. GRIGG: I do not want to interrupt the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, but in that case, the elected members in Paragraph 14 should be reduced to three. Why do they stand at five?

Major ELLIOT: No, Sir, I think not.

Sir E. GRIGG: Well, I will not press the matter.

Major ELLIOT: I do not want to go into the matter, but I think the hon. Member will find that we have not diminished the number of the special members, who remain as they were laid down. Co-option is an extra procedure put in, as I say, because of the Amendments put into the Statute by the two Houses of Parliament. We consider that we should carry the matter further, and I am sure that experience will show that, in some respects, it will have to be carried further. We shall proceed step by step, and not, I hope, take any step except it is absolutely necessary. It is our desire not to over-organise this great industry but to introduce into it the minimum of organisation which is absolutely vital in order to prevent collapse. Let me speak of another question which is present to the minds of all hon. Members to-night, that is, the great danger that if there is
a flood of imports you might get a lowering of prices on basic products, and particularly of butter and cheese, to a point at which no level of the liquid milk market could, possibly support the manufacture of milk. That has been very present to the mind of the Government since the first tentative steps towards it were made by the Milk Reorganisation Commission. All that I can say at present is that we are actively engaged in negotiations to that end. In the case of processed milk, we have been able to effect a substantial reduction, by agreement, in the processed milk which was being brought into this country and thereby to sustain that portion of surplus milk the consumption of which was in danger of being choked and was beginning to gutter out on the floor.
The hon. Member for St. Rollox (Mr. Leonard), raised two questions, as to the persons who would be the trade representatives to be consulted by the Milk Board in respect of paragraph 60 (1) of the scheme, and as to what was to be the interim period, if the pooling provisions of the scheme could not be brought into operation owing to accounting difficulties—I think that they were his two points. In the case of the first, the scheme expressly leaves it to the Board to consult such persons as it thinks best qualified to express the views of purchasers of milk by wholesale. The Minister as such has no locus in the matter, though, of course, if the trade feels strongly on the point, he will be pleased to receive their views and forward them to the Board once it is established. But the Board would be stultifying itself if, as a seller, it did not consult representative buyers when it went to sell its products. I am not afraid that there is any danger that the Board will leave some important buyer out of its consultations. It would be foolish for anyone with a product to sell not to see that he who holds the purse holds the power. It is all very well to offer the product, but what we want to do is to exchange the product for the price, and those who have the price to give will certainly have to be consulted by the producer.
I think we shall all recognise that an immense amount of detailed accounting work will be involved in the pooling arrangement, and that time must elapse before the necessary machinery can be set
up. It has been provided in paragraph 64 that the pooling arrangement shall not come into force until the Board prescribe as a term of the contract that purchase price that shall be paid by the buyer to the Board. Whether the Board will suspend all its activities until it has, so to speak, completed constituency—until it is ready to go ahead with the full pooling provisions—or whether it will apply the scheme partially, as by prescribing contract terms, it would obviously be impossible, and indeed improper, for the Minister to say; it will be a matter for the Board to decide. Until the scheme is approved by Order of the Minister and by an affirmative Resolution of this House, the Board has no lawful existence. This is a stage of its being brought into operation. The Board, of course, will have to make declarations of policy in this very important respect at the earliest practicable moment, and I am sure it will do so, because it will be pressed by all those who are concerned in the sale of their product to say where they stand. Having brought this organisation into existence, that will be one of the first and most important duties that it will have to fulfil.
My hon. friend the Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb) spoke of the necessity for dovetailing the scheme for Scotland into the English scheme, and that is very important. Some 2,000,000 gallons of milk a month cross the frontier from Scotland into England, and it is true nowadays that, by dint of the great new transporters, the glass-lined tank and so on, milk from hundreds of miles away can be brought in and can compete on equal, and even in come cases better terms, as it is a bulk supply, with milk which is brought from only a few miles away. The Secretary of State for Scotland and the Under-Secretary recognise to the full the importance of marrying, if I may so say, these two schemes, and it will be our first endeavour, as soon as this is approved, to make sure that the two schemes are brought together.
The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Mallalieu) pointed out that, as we must all agree, the success of the scheme depends upon the good will of the distributors. It has been my object all through to attempt to secure that good will, and I think the letters I have had from great London distributors and from
co-operative distributors prove that to a considerable extent we have been able to secure it. The hon. Member says, "Let us preserve this; why remove the voice which the dairyman will have under Paragraph 60 at the end of 12 months?" I would again say that you cannot remove the voice of the buyer when a transaction between buyer and seller is taking place. These are the buyers, and their voice will always be heard. The buyer is the man who speaks the last word. He says "Right; I shall take it"; and, until that voice is heard, the producer, whatever statutory monopoly he may have, is in a very poor position.
He wants his monthly cheque and even at the end of his organisation he will be no more than in a position of equality with the distributor, and I am sure he will realise that the distributor's goodwill is a sine qua non, I will not say to the success but to the working of any such scheme. Of course, when I am asked if there will be a dairymen's representative on the Market Supply Committee, the answer is No, and whether on the Board itself there will be a dairyman, again the answer is No. Let the seller go forward as one and the buyer as one. They will do their business better than if we put representatives of each other on the other one's Board.
The last question is that raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Sir W. Wayland) who put in a plea for the Jersey. There is no statutory Jersey as there is a statutory Grade A. It is not a. statutory designation and that is the reason why it is impossible to give it statutory recognition. There is provision in the scheme for premiums to be paid for special grade milks and, if it is desired to pay a premium for special grade milk as rich as my hon. Friend suggests in butter fat, no doubt under that designation it will be possible to deal with the Jersey quality of milk, but he will not expect me to dilate upon the excellence of Jersey milk, as parts of the country with which I am more closely associated have other grades which they would like to speak of, and there are representatives from other parts of the milk producing areas and, if we all dilated on the merits of our grades, we should not go home till morning. These are the specific answers to questions which have been put. If I do not say more, it is not for lack of interest in the subject or ap-
preciation of its importance. We have had a most valuable and illuminating discussion and I think we may reasonably ask the House to approve our Resolution.

Sir E. GRIGG: How will my right hon. Friend be able to amend Clause 141 I understand it has been through another place.

Major ELLIOT: I do not wish to amend it. Clause 14 describes the election of special members and does not deal with the particular point that my hon. Friend raised, which I understood was the relation between elected and co-opted members.

Sir E. GRIGG: I think there is a discrepancy between the two Clauses which may affect the working of the scheme. I was asking whether it would be posible to put it right after it had once passed the House.

Major ELLIOT: I will give further attention to the point. I am advised that if necesary, it is possible either to deal with it here or to make such Amendments later on as will meet the point.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Scheme under the Agricultural Marketing Acts. 1931 and 1933, for regulating the marketing of milk, a draft of which was presented to this House on the 20th day of July 1933, be approved.

SEA-FISHING INDUSTRY BILL.

Order for Consideration of Lords Amendments read.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered," put, and agreed to.—[Major Elliot.]

Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

CLAUSE 1.—(Regulation of landing of foreign-caught sea-fish.)

Lords Amendment: In page 1, line 23, at end insert:
Provided that the landing of sea-fish taken by a British fishing-boat registered in the Isle of Man or any of the Channel Islands shall not be exempt from the operation of an order under this section unless both the master and the second hand are British subjects.

Major ELLIOT: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

11.50 p.m.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I should like to say a. word on this Amendment, because I have already raised the matter at an earlier stage. While I cannot thank the Minister for the Amendment, I congratulate him on having obtained absolution in another place for a very bad inaccuracy. He assured us in Committee upstairs and elsewhere that the skipper and mate would have to be British and that that would apply to the Channel Islands boats and to the case of any other boat. That led the Committee to give him the original Amendment. He repeated this assurance in rather different words, and another Minister, whom we can leave out because he has escaped through the meshes of the Whips' net, also gave a similar assurance that Channel Islands boats would have to have British skippers. Now it is discovered that that was not accurate. I said quite clearly that all along I believed there was an inaccuracy with regard to the Channel Islands. After some of the extremely harsh things said to me because I raised this point, it is only right to say that I have been proved to be right. I hope the Minister, in return, will be more careful and see that my other fears are not equally right. I do believe that the Minister has tried to do his best in this respect, but at the same time, after the attacks made upon me, I am justified in pointing out that this is realy only creating a security as to assurances which he gave the Committee upstairs.

11.52 p.m.

Major ELLIOT: I have not the foibles of the hon. Member who has just spoken, but the object of having two Houses is to see that Bills are fully examined in every respect. I make no apology whatever, because in this, as in other cases under the Constitution, it has been found useful to have a Second Chamber. The point is one which it is a good thing to put right, for the information which I had at the time was wrong, and I certainly do apologise to the House for that. I make no apology for not being right in every piece of legislation brought before the House, because otherwise there would be no need for the hon.
Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) and all that would be necessary would be a set of rubber stamps--to which so far neither this House nor another place has been reduced.

Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 6, line 11, agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 9, after Clause 5, insert

NEW CLAUSE A.—(Functions of Market Supply Committee in relation to Sea-fish.)

The duties of the Market Supply Committee shall include a duty to give to the appropriate Ministers advice in connection with the making and operation of orders under this Act, and, if requested so to do by the said Ministers, to give them advice upon any specified matter relating to the supply of sea-fish in the United Kingdom.

Major ELLIOT: I beg to move, "That this House cloth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: As the Minister has taken much interest in this point, and, although I do not plead guilty to the foibles with which he credited me, may I ask him what the clause means?

11.53 p.m.

Sir MURDOCH McKENZIE WOOD: Before the Minister replies may I ask a question This market supply committee is a committee to be appointed in the first instance under the Agricultural Marketing Act. Is that not so?

Major ELLIOT: Yes.

Sir M. WOOD: Is the Minister satisfied that the Market Supply Committee which is appointed in the first instance to deal with agricultural products will be able to advise in regard to fish? The two questions are entirely different. It is an expert committee which is going to be appointed, and it seems to me that a committee, consisting only of a Chairman and four persons, which is to advise the Minister on agriculture, cannot possibly advise him on the question of fish. That, at any rate, is what has occurred to me. Has the right hon. and gallant Gentleman considered this matter, and is he satisfied that the one committee will be able to fulfil both functions?

11.54 p.m.

Major ELLIOT: In reply, first of all to my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams), it will, no doubt, not have escaped his attention that the Clause refers to an enactment which at the time of the introduction of this enactment had not reached the Statute Book. It was, therefore, impossible for us to do more than place it in the explanatory memorandum attached to the front of the Bill, which I have no doubt my hon. Friend read, as he reads every official document, with the greatest care and the most supreme desire for accuracy. It would show him that we intended to do what in fact we have done, and it would explain why we could not do what we could not do at that particular time, and how we have done now what we said we would do in the explanatory memorandum, and for that reason it is the first occasion upon which we can do it.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Would it not be possible to have the Prime Minister present to explain why this or that has been done? Would he not help to make it a little clearer?

Major ELLIOT: I have no doubt that my hon. Friend would like to hear the Prime Minister too, but I am not sure that it is always desirable to accede to all the desires of my hon. Friend, and I am sure that on this occasion he will need to put up with the comparatively humble individual who is now 'addressing him. As for the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Sir M. Wood), I think that on the question of
foodstuffs supply, the commitee reviewing the produce markets will be the appropriate committee to review the fish market as well as other produce markets. I do not think that there is any question of such experts being necessary in relation to the fish market as would not also be necessary in some respects in regard to other great produce markets which the supply committee will have to review. I can see very great advantages in the supply committee bringing within its scope all the food produce markets of the country instead of having one committee reviewing the land products and one Committee the sea products.

Question "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment" put, and agreed to.

Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE (SCOTLAND) BILL.

Lords Amendment considered, and agreed to.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Thursday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put.

Adjourned accordingly at One Minute after Twelve o'Clock.